The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.a.r.housing (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant/RespondentVs. M/s.A.R.Housing (P) Ltd.,No.32, Nathamuni Street,Naduvankarai, Anna Nagar East,Chennai – 600 040. ...Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, dated 11.09.2015 passed inI.T.A.No.623/Mds/2015 against the order dated 30.01.2015 on thefile of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Chennai 34made in I.T.A.No.470/13-14/A-1 for the Assessment year 2007-2008and against the order dated 30.03.2013 on the file of the IncomeTax Officer, Company Ward-1(1), Chennai 34 made in GIR/PANAACFT5274H for the Assessment year 2007-2008. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.623/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2007-08. The above appeal has been admitted on 27.07.2016 on thefollowing Substantial Questions of Law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is properby holding that the capital gains tax paid Estate ofMeera Dawson is to be considered as tax paid by theassessee? 2.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is properespecially when the receipt in the hands of theassessee in the capacity as confirming party is in thenature of business income and liable to be taxed asdetermined by the CIT(A)? 3.Is not the finding of the Tribunal wrong andperverse by introducing the fiction of Section 50 Cespecially when the said issue was not all discussedin the assessment order nor in the CIT (A) order? 4.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is properespecially when the assessee has claimed exemptionstating that the profit on sale of property is to betaxed separately as AOP and that too without providingits claim?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan forM/s.SubbarayaAiyar,learnedcounselfortherespondent/assessee. 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.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submittedthat the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andthat the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form– 3 on 10.12.2020. 5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. Nocosts. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Income Tax Officer Company Ward 1(1) Chennai 34. Company Ward 1(1) Chennai 34. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Chennai 34. +1 CC to M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate sr 24192.+1 CC to Mr.T. Ravi Kumar, Advocate sr 23826. Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016SR(CO)SP(18/06/2021)