The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Ms.vilina Suresh Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.04.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA TAX CASE APPEAL NO.189 OF 2020 The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Chennai...AppellantVsMs.Vilina Suresh Jain...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai made inI.T.A.No.2570/Chny/ 2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 againstthe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15,Chennai dated 28/05/2018 in ITA No.138/2017-2018/CIT(A)-15, PANNO.AHTPJ4647C for the Assessment year 2013-2014 against theorder of the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 18(5),Chennai dated 14.12.2017 in PAN/GIR.NO. for theAssessment year 2013-14 For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCRespondent : served and no appearanceJudgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity)challengingtheorderdated20.11.2019madeinI.T.A.No.2570/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) forthe assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appeal was admitted on 24.7.2020 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in remitting the issue back to thefile of the Assessing Officer by quoting thedecision in the case of Kanhaiyal and Sons https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (HUF) in ITA.No.1849/Chny/2014, Sunil KumarLalwani and Aashesh Kumar Lalwani whereinthe onus has been shifted to the Revenuewith a direction that the Assessing Officeris to bring on record the role of theassessee in promoting the company and therelation of the assessee, if any with thatof the promoters and role of inflating ofprices, etc., which exercise had alreadybeen done by the Assessing Officer and theSEBI? And ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunalperverse especially when the decision of theTribunal is contrary to the time testedprinciple that the person, who asserts afact has to discharge the initial burdencast upon him to show that the said factsare true and only thereafter the burdenwould shift to the Department ?” 3. We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. Though therespondent was served and her name printed in the cause list,none appears for her. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for theappellant/Revenue submits that an identical issue has beenconsidered by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one ofus (TSSJ) was a party, in the decision in the case of CIT Vs.Manish D.Jain [reported in (2020) 122 Taxmann.com 180] andthe issue has been answered in favour of the Revenue. 5. There is no quarrel over such proposition. 6. In the light of the said decision, the above tax caseappeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal isset aside and the substantial questions of law framed areanswered in favour of the Revenue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai 34. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward -18(5), Chennai. +1 cc to M/s.Ravi Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.21752 SMI(CO)KKV/21/06/2021 TCA.No.189 of 2020