Allowed

M/S. Procon Instrumentation v. the Assistant Commissioner of

Madras HC10 Feb 2016TCA/1117/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the tax case appeal. In dismissing a petition for condonation of delay by the Tribunal, the Bombay Bench was directed to hear the appeal on merits regarding book profits under Section 115JB. The Court held that a pedantic approach should not be adopted when granting extensions and that the matter warranted Tribunal consideration.

What did the court decide?

The tax case appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to number the appeal and take it up for hearing.

M/S. Procon Instrumentation Vs the Assistant Commissioner of — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 10.2.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶7

Tax Case Appeal No.1117 of 2015

¶8

M/s.Procon Instrumentation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-2. ...Appellant/Appellant

¶9

Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-V(2), Chennai. ...Respondent/Respondent

¶10

APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.11.2014 made in I.T.A.No.1648/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2006-07 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals V, Chennai-34 made in ITA.No.292/2010-11 dated 14.9.2012 against the order of the Assistnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(2) Chennai made in PAN.No.AAACP5175A dated 30.11.2000.

¶11

For Appellant : *Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar

¶13

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J

¶14

This tax case appeal arises out of the dismissal of a petition for condonation of delay by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

¶15

Heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Department.

¶16

The only question of law arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the Tribunal in refusing to condone the delay is correct or not ?

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

In the affidavit in support of the condone delay petition, the appellant had explained the difficulties faced by them, which led to the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal could have taken a practical approach. It is repeatedly held that while dealing with the petitions for condonation of delay, pedantic approach should not be adopted. On merits, the matter related to computation of book profits under Section 115JB. Hence, the matter was worthy of consideration by the Tribunal.

¶19

Accordingly, the tax case appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to number the appeal and take it up for hearing in the usual course. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CCC) Dated : 25.02.2016 *Order is corrected. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) Dated : 22.04.2016 /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, To be substituted to Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-V(2), Chennai. the Order already 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)V Chennai 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax despatched on 18.03.2016 Company Circle (2), Chennai 1 cc to Mr.T. Ravikumar, Advocate, Sr. 8580 1 cc to Mr. Philip George, Advocate, Sr. 8725

¶21

TCA.No.1117 of 2015 KGK (CO) kk 27/2 CA(22.04.2016)

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. Procon Instrumentation v. the Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Procon Instrumentation v. the Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Upasana Finance Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S the Peria Karamalai Tea

M/S Industrial Feeders Vs the Asst Commissioner

Ashok Leyland Ltd., Vs the Asst. Commr. of Income Tax

M/S. Excel Shipping Services, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S. Bharath Heavy Electricals