S.kavithaa v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – I (2), Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal Nos.521 to 526 of 2015 S.Kavithaa ... Appellant in all TCAsVs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle – I (2),Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent in all TCAs Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, dated 12.12.2013 passed inI.T.A.Nos.1984 to 1989/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2003-04,2004-2005,2005-2006,2006-2007,2007-2008,2008-2009respectively Against the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax Appeals I,No.46 Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam Road,Chennai600034dated14.08.2012inITA.NO.72,73,74,75,76,77/2011-2012/Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax,Central Circle I(2),No.46 MG Road,Chennai 34 dated30.06.2011 PAN.AACPK 5957/A Penalty/2003-04 A III in theAssessment Year 2003-04,2004-2005,2005-2006,2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 respectively For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,(in all cases) Senior Standing Counsel These appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.Nos.1984 to 1989/Mds/2012 for theassessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. The appeals were admittedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/on 24.07.2015 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: “ 1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right inrestoring the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) whenthe sworn statements recorded clearly show that theincome was earned by the appellant's father andinvested in the name of the appellant? 2)Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is right in restoring thepenalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the additionshad been made only on the basis of the offer madeby the appellant's father in good faith and toavoid litigation? 3)Whether explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c)is applicable to a situation where there was nofinding by the Department that the assessee was theowner of any money bullion, jewellery or othervaluable investment etc., not disclosed to thedepartment, but additions were made only on thebasis of offer by the assessee's father ?” 2. We have heard Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan, learnedcounsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,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 10.12.2020 for all the assessment years andthe learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of thisCourt to withdraw the appeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counselfor the appellant, all the Tax Case Appeals stand dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ //True Copy// va To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle – I (2),Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals I,No.46 Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam Road, Chennai 600034 +1cc to Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan, Advocate SR.No. 3860Tax Case Appeal Nos.521 to 526 of 2015 (6 cases) AD coA.SK(16.02.2021).