Mr. Bangaru Dhandapani v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Business Circle- I,Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.871 of 2009 Mr. Bangaru Dhandapani...Appellant v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Business Circle- I,Chennai. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai Benches, Chennai, dated 28.05.2009 passed inI.T.A.No.693/Mds/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. As against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) VI, 121 M.G.Road, Chennai-34, dated 28.11.2006 inITA No.148/06-07 for the Assessment Year 2003-04; and As against the proceedings by the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Business Range-I, Chennai-34, dated 27.09.2006vide PAN No. . This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against the order dated 28.05.2009 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai Benches, Chennai ('theTribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.693/Mds/2007 for theassessment year 2003-04. 2. The appeal was admitted on 19.01.2010 on the followingSubstantial Questions of Law: " (i) Whether the Tribunal is correct inconfirming the penalty imposed under Section 271Dof the Act even though the transactions underscrutiny were established and accepted as genuinewhile overlooking the purpose of the provisions inSection 269 SS of the Act? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct inconcluding the correctness of levy of penaltyunder Section 271D of the Act even though thebinding decisions cited before them weredistinguished without reasons while overlookingthe provisions in section 273B of the Act? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in lawin affirming the levy of penalty under Section271D of the Act even though the transactions underscrutiny were not in the nature of loan or depositas mentioned and envisaged in Section 269 SS ofthe Act while in the process ignoring theMemorandum of understanding and lease agreemententered which documentary evidences demonstratedand fortified the nature of the transactions asclaimed by the appellant?" 3. We have heard Mr. M. Kaushik, learned counsel for theappellant and Ms. R. Hemalatha, learned Standing Counselfor the respondent. 4. 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. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant/assessee that the assessee has already filed therequisite Forms 1 and 2 on 09.12.2020 under Section 4 ofthe Act. 3. We have heard Mr. M. Kaushik, learned counsel for theappellant and Ms. R. Hemalatha, learned Standing Counselfor the respondent. 4. 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. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant/assessee that the assessee has already filed therequisite Forms 1 and 2 on 09.12.2020 under Section 4 ofthe Act. 6. 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 hasalready filed requisite Forms 1 and 2 and the Departmentshall process the application at the earliest in accordancewith the said Act and communicate the decision to theassessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is givenliberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimatedecision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assesseeunder Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of theassessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shallentertain the prayer without insisting upon any applicationto be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of theappeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing aMiscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shallplace such petition before the Division Bench for orders. 7. With these observations, the Tax Case Appeal standsdisposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently,the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True Copy// rj Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Benches, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle- I, Chennai. Business Circle- I, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VI, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai-34. 121, M.G.Road, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, SR.No.5429. Tax Case Appeal No.871 of 2009MGR(CO)CSR: 09.03.2021