9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant - assessee. In fact, the learned counsel, who appeared in both the matters, is the same person and it is not clear as to why it was not brought to our notice by the learned counsel, when we heard [ 2019 (7) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . Be that as it may, in the light of the above discussions, the judgment in [ 2019 (7) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has to be recalled. - TAX CASE APPEAL NO.213 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s listed earlier, the learned counsel for the appellant assessee submitted that he would like to get instructions and make submissions to distinguish both the cases. Therefore, we adjourned the matter. Today, the matter is listed for hearing. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant assessee that the case in TCA.No.155 of 2009 arose out of an order in a cross objection filed by the assessee, that the dismissal of TCA.No.155 of 2009 by judgment dated 20.4.2009 can have no impact on the present appeal and that the judgment in TCA.No.213 of 2009 dated 26.6.2019 should be allowed to continue and the prayer for recalling the said judgment dated 26.6.2019 made by the Revenue should be rejected. 7. To test th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee, dismissed TCA.No.155 of 2009 by judgment dated 20.4.2009, the operative portions of which, read as follows : Recently, the Apex Court has considered Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on a reference made wherein the ratio laid down in Dhilip N.Shroff Vs. Joint CIT [reported in 291 ITR 519] was doubted. The three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [306 ITR 277] has clearly enunciated that in order to invoke Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the existence of dishonest intention and deliberate failure to give correct particulars is not necessary. The Supreme Court has held that the Explanation appended to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicate the ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
