B.k.muralikrishna v. Commissioner Of Income Tax 9, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.580 of 2017 B.K.Muralikrishna ...AppellantVs. Commissioner of Income Tax 9,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras “D” Bench, dated 22.04.2016 passed inI.T.A.No.1429/Mds/2015. Against the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax Appeals 5 Chennai 34 dated 20.03.15 inITA.No.134/13-14 in the assessment year 2007-08, against theorder of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai 6dated 31.12.09 PAN AFAPM231R in the assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi for Mr.N.V.BalajiFor Respondent : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal'for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1429/Mds/2015 for the AssessmentYear 2007-08. The assessee has raised the followingSubstantial Question of Law for consideration: “ 1) Whether under the facts and circumstancesof the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in upholding the additions made by theassessing officer in respect of purported excessstock? 2)Whether based on material before it, thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Tribunal could have come to the conclusion that at the time of there was excess stock available, thatthe same was correctly valued and is to be assessedas income of the appellant? 3)Whether under the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in upholding the addition of Rs.16.50 lakhsin respect of property for purchase of property atMadhavaram? 4)Is the finding of the Tribunal that theappellant paid on money of Rs.16.50 lakhs forpurchasing property at Madhavaram not perverse? 5)Whether under the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in upholding that addition of Rs.16.50 lakhsmade by the Assessing Officer as money payment forpurchase of land at Kannigai Village? 6)Is the finding of the Tribunal that theappellant paid on money of Rs.16.50 lakhs forpurchasing land for his factory at Kannigai Villagenot pervers? 7)Whether under the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in upholding the additions made by theAssessing Officer merely based on the swornstatement made by the assessee during survey? 8)Whether under facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in remitting the issueof disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act tothe file of the Assessing Officer for freshconsideration? 9)Is the finding of the Tribunal that thefacts do not show any compelling business reasonsor exigencies for the payment of expenditure incash not perverse?” 2. We have heard Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, learned counsel for theappellant/ assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned StandingCounsel for the respondent/ Revenue. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions of Law framed for consideration onaccount of certain subsequent developments. The Government ofIndia enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and formatters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act ofthe Parliament received the assent of the President on 17[th]March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] Marchhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/2020. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant/assessee that the assessee has already filed thedeclaration on 07.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions of Law framed for consideration onaccount of certain subsequent developments. The Government ofIndia enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and formatters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act ofthe Parliament received the assent of the President on 17[th]March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] Marchhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/2020. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant/assessee that the assessee has already filed thedeclaration on 07.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. 5. In the light of the fact that the assessee has alreadyavailed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would beserved in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time,safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event theorder to be passed by the Department under the Act is not infavour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appealstands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has alreadyfiled a declaration and the Department shall process theapplication at the earliest in accordance with the said Actand communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest.As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore thisappeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on thedeclaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the saidAct is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer ismade, the Registry shall entertain the prayer withoutinsisting upon any application to be filed for condonation ofdelay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made bythe assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition forRestoration, the Registry shall place such petition before theDivision Bench for orders. 6. With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal standsdisposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently,the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. Assistant Registrar vaTo //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax 9, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.Balaji, Advocate SR.3336+1cc to Mr.Ravi kumar, Advocate SR.2875 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/