Madras High Court
M/S.G.K.Management Services vs The Income Tax Officer on 30 March, 2021
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
TCA.No.232 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.3.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.232 of 2019 M/s.G.K.Management Services (India) Ltd., Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.8.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.3316/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2013-14.
For Appellant: Mr.A.S.Sriraman
For Respondent: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.232 of 2019 dated 31.8.2017 made in I.T.A.No.3316/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2013-14.
2. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law :
““i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in delinking/isolating Section 43B of the Act from the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act while sustaining/justifying the taxability of belated remittance of employees' contribution of PF and ESI on the reckoning of the due dates in the respective statutes while negating the plea for harmonious construction for allowing such sum in view of the payments made by the appellant in the capacity of the employer before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for filing the return of income for the assessment year under consideration ?
ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not following the predominant judicial view especially the subsequent decisions of this Court while preferring to follow their interpretation of the said provisions of the Act and further in preferring to follow 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.232 of 2019 the earlier decision of this Court rendered in the case of M/s.Madras Radiators & Pressing Ltd.? And iii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is competent to take a view on the issue on hand in favour of the Revenue despite the predominent judicial view is in favour of the tax payer/assessee as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court rendered in the case reported in 88 ITR 172 for adopting the view favourable to the tax payer/assessee?”
3. We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue.
4. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 10.3.2021 in Form No.3.
5. 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 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.232 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS 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.
6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs.
30.3.2021 To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai.
2.The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. TCA.No.232 of 2019 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/