M/S Tamil Nadu Urban v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.08.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1021 and 1022 of 2008 M/s.Tamil Nadu Urban Development Fund, "Vairam Complex", 1st Floor, No.112, Sir Thyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

... Appellant in both Appeals -vsThe Income-tax Officer, Business Ward-II (4), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.

... Respondent in both Appeals Tax Cases (Appeals) filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench dated 01.02.2008 in I.T.A.Nos.670 & 671/Mds/2007 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively.

For Appellant :

Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli (in both Appeals) For Respondent :

Mr.M.Swaminathan, (in both Appeals) Standing Counsel :

and M/s.S.Premalatha COMMON JUDGMENT [Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] These Tax Case Appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench dated 01.02.2008 in I.T.A.Nos.670 & 671/Mds/2007 relating to the assessment years 2002-03 and 200304 respectively. 2.The above appeals have been admitted on 29.07.2008, on the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought not to have upheld the order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and cancelled the levy of penalty under Sec.271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act and did not err in merely setting aside the order of penalty and remanding the matter to the Income Tax Officer? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act should be a consequential proceeding to the quantum proceeding which was already set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer?"

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on remand, while giving effect to the order, penalty has not been levied and therefore, the appeals have become infructuous.

4.Hence, the appeals stand dismissed as infructuous and the substantial questions of law, raised for consideration, are left open. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(co) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench.Sastri Bhavan, Chennai.

2. The Income-tax Officer, Business Ward-II (4), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.

3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appea;s)-VI, Chennai.

+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.59644 +1cc to Mr.N.Muthukumar, Advocate, S.R.No.60020 T.C.(A) Nos.1021 and 1022 of 2008 rr(co) cs/16/10/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/