G.v.david Rajan v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10, Chennai-34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.3.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA G.V.David Rajan...Appellant Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax- 10, Chennai-34....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 11.5.2017 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai made inI.T.A.No.991/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. Against the order dated 18.03.2015 made by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 inITA.No.77 CIT(A)-14/2013-14, against the proceedings of theIncome Tax Officer, Office of the Income Tax Officer BusinessWard-III (3) made in Assessment order dated 25.03.2013 for theAssessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.N.V.Narayanan for Mr.N.V.BalajiFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted byMrs.V.Pushpa, JSC Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity)challengingtheorderdated11.5.2017madeinI.T.A.No.991/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) forthe assessment year 2010-11.2. The assessee filed this appeal by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ““i.Whether,underfactsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the land of theappellant was not an agricultural land onthe date of sale and hence, the capitalgains upon converson of agricultural landinto stock into trade is liable to tax ? ii. Whether, on facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal could have come tothe conclusion that the land was nonagricultural land based on material beforeit? iii.Whether,onfactsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that 5% of the expensesincurred by the appellant in its businessshould be disallowed? And iv. Whether, on facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right inholding the value of the opening stock ofland as on 01.4.2009 should be computed asper reverse indexation method?” 3. We have heard Mr.N.V.Narayanan, learned counselappearingonbehalf of the appellant/assessee andMr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted byMrs.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent/Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that theassessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under theVivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 18.12.2020 inForm No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the assessee isgiven liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimatedecision taken on the declaration filed by the assessee underSection 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. Ifsuch a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayerwithout insisting upon any application to be filed forcondonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on suchrequest made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petitionfor restoration, the Registry shall place such petition beforethe appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with theaforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questionsof law raised are left open. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII)//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Chennai-34.3.The Income Tax Officer Business Ward-III(3),Chennai. Copy ToThe Assistant Registrar,Appeal Examiner Section Main,High Court, Madras-104. +1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.15146+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.15063 TCA.No.619 of 2018 AK-II(CO)CS/01/04/2021