A.v. Anoop v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Company Circle - I(3),Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.675 of 2013 A.V. Anoop,No.1291, Kambar Colony,18[th] Main Road, Anna Nagar West,Chennai – 600 040. ... Appellant v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle - I(3),Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai dated 25.06.2013 passed inITA.No.461/Mds/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010.Preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals)-III, Chennai-34 dated 07.12.2012 made in ITA.No.360/A– III, Preferred against the order passed by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Company circle-I(3), Chennai-34dated 31.12.2011 for the Assessment year 2009-10. For Respondent : Mr.T. Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 25.06.2013 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I..TA.No.463/Mds/2013 for the Assessment Year2009-2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. 3.The appellant has raised the following substantialquestions of law in the grounds of appeal : “ (i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right intreating the profit from sale of agricultural land asbusiness profits merely because the assessee also hada real estate business? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right ingiving a perverse finding of fact that there was noevidence that assessee was carrying on agriculturalactivities and income earned was not shown asagricultural income in the earlier years, when thefinding of the CIT(A) regarding the cultivationcarried on by the assessee and the agricultural Incomereturned was not challenged by the Revenue? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right intaking a view contrary to that of a co-ordinate bench,that too, one is which one of the members is commons?” 3. We have heard Mr. Arun Joseph, learnedcounsel for the appellant and Mr. T.Ravikumar,learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Question of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of Indiaenacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of theParliament received the assent of the President on 17[th] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form –3 on 22.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellantseeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarRjTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C” Bench 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle - I(3), Chennai – 600 034.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai-34+1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate Sr No. 19754+1 cc to M/s.G.Vardini Karthik, Advocate Sr No.19798Tax Case Appeal No.675 of 201326.03.2021PM(CO)RG.23.04.2021(3P/6C)