M/S.gupta Automobiles v. The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward – Vi (2),Income Tax Department

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. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.500 of 2014 M/s.Gupta Automobiles,No.112/8, G.P.Road,Lakshmi Arcade, Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 002. ...Appellant/Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward – VI (2),Income Tax Department,121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai – 600 034....Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, dated 05.03.2014 passed inI.T.A.No.70/Mds/2013.Appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome-Tax (Appeals)-IX, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34,dated 31.10.2012 made in ITA.No.212/11-12 and against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Officer, Business Ward VI(2), Chennai-34, made in PAN.No. , dated 28/12/2011 For Appellant : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.70/Mds/2013 for the assessment year 2009- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2010. The above appeal was admitted on 17.09.2014 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inlaw in not accepting as well as not considering thepetition filed for admission of additional evidenceunder Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalRules, 1963 on 24.06.2013 for establishing and forreckoning the date of transfer/surrender of tenancyrights on the subject property under Section 2(47)(i)/(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for considering theclaim of tax exemption under Section 54EC of the Actbeing reinvestment of the compensation received inrelation to the said transfer/surrender of tenancyrights on the subject property? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in lawin sustaining the action of the Respondent/AssessingOfficer in rejecting the claim of tax exemption underSection 54EC of the Act by overlooking/brushing asidethe explanation offered by the purchaser of the saidproperty namely M/s. Taj GVK Hotels and Resorts Ltd.dated 21.12.2011 in the assessment proceedings duringcross verification as self serving evidence so as tocompute the period of six months from the date oftransfer/surrender of tenancy rights on the subjectproperty as on 13.05.2008 instead of November, 2008 forthe eligibility of the re-investment made in theapproved instruments/REC bonds on 24.03.2009 being thecompensation received in relation thereto? 3.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inignoring the evidence filed in support of the claim ofcontinuance of possession of the subject property whiledoing active business even after the first agreementdated 13.05.2008 as well as the evidence filed toestablish the surrender of the vacant possession in themonth of November, 2008 so as to reckon the date oftransfer under Section 2(47)(i)(ii) of the Act forcomputing the period of six months to justify the claimof tax exemption under Section 54EC of the Act for there-investment made in the approved instruments on24.03.2009?” 2. We have heard Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learnedcounsel for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of India https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. We have heard Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learnedcounsel for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of India https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of theParliament received the assent of the President on 17[th] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3on 27.01.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarmknTo 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench,Chennai 2. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward – VI (2), Income Tax Department, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) IX, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34 +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, SR.No.11086 Tax Case Appeal No.500 of 2014 BS(CO)KKV/11/03/2021