M/S. Dharanidhara Spinning Mills P. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax. Salem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI M/s. Dharanidhara Spinning Mills P. Ltd.,No.16-C, Rajaji Road,Salem - 636 007.... Appellant in both TCAVs. The Commissioner of Income Tax.Salem. ... Respondent in both TCA Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai, ''D'' Bench, dated 08.08.2008 served on 22/09/2008 inITA.Nos.2856 & 2857/Mds/2004 for the Assessment Years 2001-02and 2002-03 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Salem dated 25/08/2004 in ITA.Nos.144/03-04 and dated27/08/2004 in ITA.No. No. 174/03-04 and against the order of theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 1, Salemdated 03/09/2003 in PAN/GIR/No-IDCD 001 for the Assessment Year2001-2002 and 2002-2003 respectively. COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directedagainst the order dated 08.08.2008 made in ITA.Nos.2856 &2857/Mds/2004 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai, ''D'' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for theAssessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03. 2.The appeals were admitted on 15.09.2009 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in law in upholding the levy ofinterests u/s 234B and 234C while computing theMAT under the deeming provisions of Sec.115JB ofthe Act? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct inlaw in upholding the levy of interests when theprovisions relating to advance tax in sections207 to 211 are not applicable to the computationunder chapter XII-B? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justifiedin law in upholding the levy of interests u/s234B and 234C when such a charge is notspecifically laid out by the provisions ofSec.115JB and in the absence of mandate in law,the levy of interest by implication wassustainable? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified inholding that the levy of interests were validthough the computation u/s. 115JB is not a'regular assessment' for giving effect to theprovisions relating to advance tax? (v) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in upholding the levy of interest inthe computation u/s.115JB in the context ofsec.219, where credit for advance tax is given inthe 'regular assessment'? (vi) Whether the decision of the Tribunalupholding the levy of interest was correct in lawwhen the tax paid is to be given credit u/s.115JAA over a five year period and hence onlypartakes the character of future tax not liableto the levy of interest? and (vii) Whether the Tribunal ought to havefollowed the Supreme Court decision in the caseof Kwality Biscuits reported in 284 ITR 434 as itapplies on all fours to the issue on hand?” .3. We have heard Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for theappellant and Ms. R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel forthe 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] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form –3 on 29.01.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeals. 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] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form –3 on 29.01.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeals. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''D'' Bench. Salem. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''D'' Bench. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 1, Salem. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.5431 T.C.A.Nos.831 & 832 of 2009 AJS(CO)GN(22/02/2021)