M.babulal Gulechano v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle-X, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 M.Babulal GulechaNo.390/2, Mint Street,Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. ...Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-X, Chennai. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras "C" Bench, dated 28.08.2013 passed inI.T.A.No.1993/Mds/2011 against the order of Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-IV, Chennai-34, dated.29.09.2011 passedin ITA.No.176 & 179/08-09/A-IV from the Assessment year 2006-2007 For Appellant : Mr.T.VasudevanFor Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel and Mrs.R.Hemalatha 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 28.08.2013 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.1993/Mds/2011 for the assessment year2006-07. The above appeal has been admitted on 25.08.2015 onthe following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas correct, in law, in confirming the addition ofhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Rs.12,00,000/- in the face of sale agreement and bank statement evidencing the bona fide of thetransaction?2.Whether the Tribunal was justified inconfirming the addition although the affidavitfiled by Mr.Mahadevan had not been dislodged by theofficer with any other relevant material? 3.Whether the Tribunal was correct, in law, innot deleting the addition although the lack ofsufficient opportunity to produce him amounts toviolation of natural justice?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel for theappellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent/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] March2020. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issuedwith Form-3 on 18.03.2021 and the learned counsel for theappellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw theappeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counselfor the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-X, Chennai. Circle-X, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Chennai-34 Chennai-34 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle-X, Chennai-6 Business Circle-X, Chennai-6 +1CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, Sr.No.30685 Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 KV (CO)K.RK. (01.07.2021)