Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii v. M/S.life Cell International P. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Commissioner of Income Tax II,121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai – 600 034. ... AppellantVs. M/s.Life Cell International P. Ltd.,No.26, Vandalur Kelambakkam Road,Keelkottaiyur,Chennai – 600 048. ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, dated 11.03.2015 passed inI.T.A.No.2142/Mds/2014, Assessment year 2010-11. Preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Chennai dated 06.03.2014 made in ITA.No.1740/13-14 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Company Circle II (4), Chennai, dated 17/05/2012made in PAN/GIR.No.AAECA 7997B for the Assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.2142/Mds/2014 for the assessment year2010-11. The above appeal has been admitted on 21.09.2015 onthe following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal iscorrect in holding that the storage fee collected byhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the assessee in lumpsum cannot be treated as income of the year of receipt, which is contrary to Section5(1) of the Income Tax Act? 2.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunalis correct in holding that the lumpsum fee collectedfor 21 years is to be taxed on pro rata basis whenthe assessee is following Mercantile system ofaccounting?” 2. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji,learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 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] March2020. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submittedthat the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andthat the respondent/assessee had already been issued withForm–3 on 30.12.2020. 5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued withForm-3, nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of.No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS-VII) //True Copy// mkn Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench Chennai "C" Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax II, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany circle – II(4), Room No.514, New Block, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. +1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No. 24791 Tax Case Appeal No.782 of 2015 CP(CO)GN(29/06/2021)