2021 (4) TMI 131 - HC - Income Tax

High Court admits Revenue appeal challenging ITAT order for AY 2014-15, raises substantial legal questions.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 14 (3), Chennai. Versus M/s. Phool Chand Mangal Chand

The High Court of Madras admitted an appeal by the Revenue challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2014-15. The ... Tribunal remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer - as assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 30.12.2020 in Form No.3. - HELD THAT:- In the light of the subsequent event, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. Issues:1. Appeal challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 2014-15.2. Substantial questions of law regarding re-examination by Assessing Officer and shifting onus to Revenue.3. Declaration filed under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme by assessee.Analysis:1. The High Court of Madras heard an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was admitted based on substantial questions of law related to the Tribunal's decision regarding the re-examination by the Assessing Officer and the shifting of onus to the Revenue.2. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal questioned whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order to re-examine the matter, considering that the Assessing Officer had already examined it before passing the assessment order. Additionally, it was queried whether the Tribunal was justified in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer and shifting the onus to the Revenue to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company, relationship with promoters, and role in inflating share prices.3. During the proceedings, the counsel for the assessee informed the court that the assessee had already filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders were passed on the same. In light of this development, the assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on the declaration filed under Section 4 of the Act was not favorable. The Registry was directed to entertain the restoration request without requiring an application for condonation of delay, and any miscellaneous petition for restoration would be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for orders.4. As a result, the tax case appeal was disposed of with the mentioned liberty, leaving the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal open for future consideration based on the outcome of the declaration filed by the assessee under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.