The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.dharmsee Paripia, A-1, Hamra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Tax Case Appeal No.465 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... AppellantVs. M/s.Dharmsee Paripia,A-1, Hamra, No.1, Kothari Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, dated 13.02.2015 passed inI.T.A.No.2309/Mds/2014. And against order of the commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals -V), Nungambakkam, chennai 34 and made in ITA.No.444/13-14 (A)-V and dated 26/05/2014 and against the order ofthe Income Tax Officer Business Ward XV(2), Chennai 34, andmade in PAN.No. order dated 30/03/2013 for theAssessment Year 2010-11 For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.Rahul Unnikrishnan This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.2309/Mds/2014 for the assessment year2010-11. The above appeal has been admitted on 22.07.2015 onthe following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disallowance made by the Assessing Officer onaccount of short term capital loss ofRs.17,63,12,240/- is to be allowed and to be treatedas a genuine transaction? 2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad byholding that there was no colourable device involvedin setting off the short term capital loss againstthe long term capital gains especially when theassessee had invested Rs.18,13,50,000/- in theshares of a loss making company and sold the samewithin a period of 11 days after acquiring it at therate of 1/40[th] of the issue price?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.Rahul Unnikrishnan,learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 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.LearnedSeniorCounselappearingfortheappellant/Revenue submitted that the respondent/assessee hadavailed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that therespondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 videReference No.973239070311220. 5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued withForm-3, nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.Recording the submission made by the learned Senior Counselfor the appellant/Revenue, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposedof. No costs. Assistant Registrar (CS-III)//True Copy// mkn Sub Assistant Registrar 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XV (2), Chennai 34. Business Ward XV (2), Chennai 34. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 24552 Tax Case Appeal No.465 of 2015 RR(CO)GN(23/06/2021)