Allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. the Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Kerala HC3 Jan 2019ITA/118/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals against the ITA Tribunal. It held that since the GOI waived interest before the revision return was filed and the revised return was submitted within time, the liability for the prior year stood extinguished. Consequently, the subsequent year's book profit remained negative. The order under Section 263 was invalid as it lacked authority to affect the already-complete

What did the court decide?

The appeals were rejected, the Tribunal's order was upheld, and Section 263 order was set aside as it lacked authority.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs the Fertilizers & Chemicals… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 13TH POUSHA, 1940

¶7

ITA.No. 102 of 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 289/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I COCHIN.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. 111/793, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI - 683 501.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS

¶16

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.01.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.118/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶24

THURSDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 13TH POUSHA, 1940

¶25

ITA.No. 118 of 2012

¶26

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 106/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH

¶27

APPELLANT/S:

¶28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I COCHIN.

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶30

RESPONDENT/S:

¶31

THE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. 111/793 ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI 683501

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS

¶33

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.01.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.102/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶35

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

[ ITA 102/2012, ITA.118/2012 ]

¶38

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶39

The Revenue is in appeal before us for the

¶40

assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Before framing

¶41

the question of law, we have to look at the facts as available in the two years, which are inter-connected. The assessee had availed of a loan from Government of

¶42

India (for short “GOI”), the outstanding in which was Rs.574.46 crores as on 31.03.2004 and Rs.619.40 crores

¶43

as on 31.03.2005. The assessee had applied for a waiver of interest on loan, as also partial/total

¶44

conversion of the unsecured loans into equity, which was under consideration by GOI.

¶45

By order dated 31.03.2003 the GOI approved

¶46

deferment of interest outstanding as on 31.03.2003.

¶47

Hence, no provision for interest was made in the accounts for the year ending 31.03.2004. For the following year, ie., ending 31.03.2005, the assessee provided a provision for interest on Rs.50,97,23,074/-

¶48

for the financial year 2004-05. Later, before the

¶49

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶50

¶51

assessments for the two years were completed, the GOI

¶52

had permitted waiver of interest upto 31.03.2005 (including the interest payable in the two assessment years, which is the subject matter of this appeal). The assessee hence filed a revised return in the first year 2005-06, deleting the provision made and adding it

¶53

to the profit. The original return filed by the assessee showed a loss of Rs.100,43,93,711/- and a negative book profit of Rs.32,50,56,501/-. On the GOI permitting waiver of the interest for the said year, the assessee added back the same to the profits and reduced it from the losses. The book profit as per the revised computation was negative at Rs.81,97,27,138/-.

¶54

Hence, there was no tax payable even under Section 115JB for the said year. The Commissioner by Annexure B order produced in I.T.A.No.102/2012 interfered with the assessment order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The interference was on the specific ground that if the assessee is allowed to make the adjustment in the assessment year 2005-06, then the assessee would effectively absolve

¶55

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶56

¶57

itself from the liability to tax on Rs.40 crores in the subsequent year being 2006-07.

¶58

Section 263. The order under Section 263 was not given effect to and the matter was pending before the Tribunal. Even before the order under Section 263, when

¶59

the revised order passed under Section 143(3) of the

¶60

Act for the year 2005-06 was subsisting, the Assessing Officer proceeded to assess the book profits under Section 115JB in the second year, ie., 2006-07 as if

¶61

the revised assessment order had not been passed. Tax was demanded on the book profit, under Section 115JB coming to Rs.40,24,85,349/-. In fact the order under

¶62

section 263 was passed for the assessment year 2005-06, later to the assessment order for the next assessment year 2006-07.

¶63

The questions of law arising in the appeals for

¶64

the respective years are re-framed as under:-

¶65

1. Whether the assessee was entitled to revise the return for the year 2005-06 on the basis of the subsequent waiver of interest granted by GOI when the interest had accrued in the financial year and had to be treated as a liability for

¶66

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶67

¶68

the said year, the assessee having followed the mercantile system of accounting ?

¶69

2. Ought not the Tribunal have set aside the order passed under Section 263 on the ground of it being not legally sustainable ?

¶70

The learned Counsel for the Revenue would rely

¶71

on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshav

¶72

Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T., [1953] 33 ITR 230 and C.I.T. v. Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co.Pvt.Ltd., [1996] 222 ITR 583 to contend that the assessee followed the

¶73

mercantile system of accounting and hence cannot escape

¶74

from the interest liability which accrued in the year, merely on the basis of the subsequent waiver of such

¶75

liability. It is also contended that the Commissioner

¶76

had interfered with the assessment order for the

¶77

earlier year under Section 263, which would enable the

¶78

book profit to be assessed under Section 115JB for the second year.

¶79

emphatically pointed out that the order under Section

¶80

263 of the Act was dated 19.02.2010 while the

¶81

assessment order for the subsequent year was prior and dated 30.12.2008. It is the contention of the assessee

¶82

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶83

¶84

that the order under Section 263 was passed only to

¶85

validate the earlier order for the assessment year 2006-07.

¶86

We find that the assessment for the year 200607 was completed, after the assessment for the earlier year, 2005-06, had been completed accepting the revised return filed by the assessee. The revised return was filed by the assessee within the time provided for the same and there is no contention taken regarding the limitation having worked out against the assessee. In such circumstances on that basis alone the subsequent assessment passed in the year 2006-07 has to be found to be without any authority.

¶87

Further, it is to be noticed that the issue arise only if there exists a book profit for the year 2006-07; which would not be there if the revised assessment for the assessment year 2005-06 is permitted to stand. Only if the adjustments for the earlier year were not permitted, the book profit would turn positive by virtue of the credit made to the profit and loss

¶88

account; of the provision for interest for the two years. We find that there is no question of accrual of

¶89

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶90

¶91

interest, especially since the assessee had filed revised return within the time provided for the same; after the interest was waived by the GOI. We, hence,

¶92

answer the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We uphold the order of the Tribunal and reject the appeals, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

I.T.A.Nos.102 & 118 of 2012

¶101

¶102

APPENDIX OF ITA 102/2012

¶103

APPELLANT'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶104

ANNEXURE A COPY OF ASST.ORDER U/S.143(3), DATED 30/10/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.263 DATED 19/02/2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI.

¶105

ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2012 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH ITA NO.289/COCH/2010.

¶106

APPENDIX OF ITA 118/2012

¶107

APPELLANT'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶108

ANNEXURE A COPY OF ASST.ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 30/12/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ITA-80/R-1/E/CITII/08-09 DATED 30/11/2009 OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-II, KOCHI.

¶109

ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2012 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH ITA NO.106/COCH/2010.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. the Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. the Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rema Vijayalal Vs State of Kerala

Us Technology Resources Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Poyilakada Fisheries Ltd, Kollam.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

P.R.Enterprises, Vs State of Kerala

Maroli Prema, Vs State of Kerala