M/S.digivision Electronics Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Company Circle – I(4),Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVITax Case Appeal No.617 of 2011 M/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd.,4, Morrison Fourth Street,Alandur,Chennai – 600 016. ...Appellant Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle – I(4),Chennai. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "B" Bench, dated 09.09.2011 passed inI.T.A.No.1379/Mds/2010 against the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax Appeals III,chennai dated 06.08.2010 inITA.NO.260/2008-2009/ A III for the Assessment Year 2003-2004. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Company Circle I (4),Chennai dated 29.12.2008 in PA.GIRNO.AAACD 2691 K for the Assessment Year 2003-2004. This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "B" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/brevity) in I.T.A.No.1379/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2003-2004. The appellant has raised the following substantialquestions of law in the above appeal. “(1)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correctin law in sustaining the action of the respondent inframing the re-assessment under Section 147 of theAct even though there were no fresh materials toform the reasonable belief on the escapement ofincome from assessment as well as there was noconcession against invalid assumption jurisdictionunder Section 147 of the Act? (2)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inlaw in rejecting the claim of expenses ofRs.1,62,75,000/- in the computation of Long TermCapital Gains within the scope of Section 48 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 even though such claim ofexpenses were incurred in connection with and forremoving encumbrance on the property / capitalasset?” The above appeal was admitted on 24.01.2012 as far as thesecond substantial question of law is concerned. 2. We have heard Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learnedcounsel for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar,learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/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 12.01.2021 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/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal standsdismissed as withdrawn. No costs. //True Copy// https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "B" Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – I(4), Chennai. Company Circle – I(4), Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals III,121, Mahathma Gandhi Road,chennai34.121, Mahathma Gandhi Road,chennai34. +2ccs to Mr.Ravi kumar , Advocate SR.No. 11563 & 11073+1cc to Mr.Sridhar, Advocate SR.No. 11087 A.SK(10.03.2021) Tax Case Appeal No.617 of 2011