Shri S.elango Sea Castle v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Iii (1), Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.463 of 2017 Shri S.ElangoSea Castle, No.46/20,North Crescent Road,T.Nagar,Chennai – 600 017. ...Appellant/AppellantVs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle-III (1),Chennai....Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 23.11.2016 passed inI.T.A.No.2128/Mds/2013 for the Assessment year 2006-2007 againstthe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)(C)-II Chennai 34dated 30.09.2013 made in I.T.A. No. 301 and 302/2013-2014 forthe Assessment year 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 against the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle III(1)Chennai dated 30.12.2008 made in PAN/GIR No. for theAssessment year 2006-2007. For Appellant : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ brevity) in I.T.A.No.2128/Mds/2013 for the assessment year2006-07. The appellant/assessee has raised the followingSubstantial Questions of Law in the above appeal: "1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inlaw in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act despite the surrender of additional incomeon which the penalty was imposed in the course of thesearch as reflected in the recording of swornstatement u/s.132(4) of the Act? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inlaw in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act on the interpretation of proviso (2) toexplanation (5) below the section 271(1)(c) of theAct which according to the appellant would defeat thepurposive legislation?” 2. We have heard Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learnedcounsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,learned Senior Standing Counsel and Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani, learnedStanding 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 Indiaenacted 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 11.02.2021 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, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. mknTo 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III (1), Chennai. Central Circle-III (1), Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A)(C)-II Chennai 34. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle III(1) Chennai Central Circle III(1) Chennai +1 CC to Mr.T.R. Senthil Kumar, Advocate sr 26518. Tax Case Appeal No.463 of 2017 VBM(CO)SP(15/06/2021)