Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ltu Chennai v. M/S.turbo Energy Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.03.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANAND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD T.C.A.No.287 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax - LTU Chennai .. Appellant Versus M/s.Turbo Energy Ltd,67, Chamiers Road,Chennai - 600 028. .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“C”Bench,Chennai,dated03.12.2010passedinI.T.A.No.978/Mds/2005 for the Assessment Year 2001-02 againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chnnai Bench C,Chennai dated 13.11.2009 passed in M.P.No.214/Mds/08(arising andof I.T.A.No.978/Mds/05) for the Assessment Year 2001-02; againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench'C' Chennai, dated 08.02.2008 passed in I.T.A.No.978/Mds/2005for the Assessment Year 2001-02; and against the Appellate orderof the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai 600034, dated 19.01.2005 in I.T.A.No398/2004-05/AIII for theAssessment Year 2001-02; For Appellant: Mrs.R.HemalathaSenior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.Venkatanarayananfor Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /Revenue, challenging the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “C” Bench, Chennai, dated 03.12.2010 passed inI.T.A.No.978/Mds/2005, relating to the assessment year 2001 -02. In the order impugned herein, the Tribunal recorded thefollowing findings: “...We are of the view that thelearned CIT(A) was right in law in holdingthat the revised return filed by theassessee on 28.3.2003 was a valid returnand in directing the Assessing Officer toconsider the revised return filed and passthe necessary orders as it is found thatthe same was filed within the statutorytime limit. In the circumstances, thefinding of the learned CIT(A) is found tobe on a right footing and does not callfor any interference”. 2.By order dated 16.08.2011, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questionof law: "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holdingthat the revised return filed by theassessee was a valid return under Section139(5) on the only ground that it wasfilled before an assessment under Section143(3) was completed without adjudicatingupon the important grounds of appealraised by the Revenue regarding thevalidity of the revised return on theissue as to whether there was any omissionor wrong statement in the original returnfiled by the assessee?" 3.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration,the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that theassessee had filed its revised return of income on 28.03.2003,which was processed and an assessment order was passed by theassessing authority on 11.12.2008 and hence, there is nothingsurviving for adjudication. 4.In view of the above submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the appellant, this court is of the opinion that therelief sought herein has become infructuous. Therefore, this taxcase appeal stands disposed of, leaving the substantial questionof law open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True copy// gba/dhk Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax - LTU Chennai 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Company Circle III(2), Chennai 4.The CIT (Appeals)-III, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.15115 +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate SR.No.15117 TCA No. 287 of 2011 PA(CO)GMY(05/04/2022)