Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Estate Of Late Balu Bai Dadha on 8 January, 2020
Author: V.K
Bench: Vineet Kothari, R.Suresh Kumar
Judgt. dt. 8.1.2020 in T.C.1482/2008, etc.
CIT v. Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 8.1.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Tax Case Nos.1482 to 1487 and 937 of 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai Appellant in all the cases
Vs.
Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha,
by Executor S.Mohanchand Dadha
268, Loyds Road,
Chennai 600 014. Respondent in TC 1482/2008
Shri.Pradeep Dadha Respondent in TC 1483/2008
Smt.Kanta Kavar Dadha Respondent in TC 1484/2008
Subhagmal Mohanchand Dadha
(HUF), 268, Loyds Road,
Chennai 600 014. Respondent in TC 1485/2008
Shri.M.Meherchand Dadha Respondent in TC 1486 & 1487
of 2008
Shri.S.Mohanchand Dadha (HUF),
M/s.Kumbahat & Co.C.A.'s,
144, N.S.C.Bose Road,
Chennai-79. Respondent in TC 937/2008
Tax Cases filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgt. dt. 8.1.2020 in T.C.1482/2008, etc.
CIT v. Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha
2/6
Chennai, dated 16.11.2007 in ITA Nos.172/Mds/2005, 173/Mds/2005,
174/Mds/2005, 177/Mds/2005, 176/Mds/2005, 180/Mds/2005 and
178/Mds/2005.
For Appellant : Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani
Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Cases have been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 16.11.2007 in ITA Nos.172/Mds/2005, 173/Mds/2005, 174/Mds/2005, 177/Mds/2005, 176/Mds/2005, 180/Mds/2005 and 178/Mds/2005, for the Block Period 1.4.1988 to 15.12.1998, by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"T.C.Nos.1482 to 1485 of 2008
i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that since the amalgamation is a reality, amounts received by the assessee from the amalgamated company from even before the amalgamation cannot be brought to tax?
ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 8.1.2020 in T.C.1482/2008, etc. CIT v. Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha 3/6 the Tribunal was right in holding that interest on the amounts agreed to be paid by the amalgamated company cannot be brought to tax?
T.C.No.1486 & 1487 of 2008
i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the block assessment order passed under section 158BC in the assessee's case is bad in law as the material seized was not books of account or other documents but loose sheets of paper?
ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that since the amalgamation is a reality, amounts received by the assessee from the amalgamated company from even before the amalgamation cannot be brought to tax?
iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest on the amounts agreed to be paid by the amalgamated company cannot be brought to tax?
iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 8.1.2020 in T.C.1482/2008, etc. CIT v. Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha 4/6 made by the assessing officer on account of undisclosed income?
T.C.No.937 of 2008
i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee as a share holder of TDPL had not received any cash consideration for accepting the merger of TDPL with SPIL?
ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest paid by SPIL to the assessee for the period from 1.7.1997 till the date of search cannot be brought to tax?"
2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore).
3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filed by the http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 8.1.2020 in T.C.1482/2008, etc. CIT v. Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha 5/6 Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs.
(V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.)
8.1.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssk.
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai.
2. Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.
3. Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha, by Executor S.Mohanchand Dadha 268, Loyds Road, Chennai 600 014.
4. Subhagmal Mohanchand Dadha (HUF), 268, Loyds Road, Chennai 600 014.
5. Shri.S.Mohanchand Dadha (HUF), M/s.Kumbahat & Co.C.A.'s, 144, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai-79.
http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 8.1.2020 in T.C.1482/2008, etc. CIT v. Estate of Late Balu Bai Dadha 6/6 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.
and R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
ssk.
TC Nos.1482 to 1487 and 937 of 2008 8.1.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in