Dismissed

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

Madras HC9 Feb 2016TCA/98/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order holding that receipts from the sale of tree trunks do not constitute business income. The bench found that the Tribunal correctly followed its own earlier decision which has attained finality in this Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The tax case appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S the Peria Karamalai Tea — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 09.2.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶7

Tax Case Appeal No.98 of 2016

¶8

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore.

¶9

APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 22.5.2015 made in I.T.A.No.2479/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2010-2011 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Coimbatore in Appeal No.254/13-14 dated 18.7.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011 and against the order of the Assessmet order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(1) Coimbatore in PAN/GIR.No.AAACT7928H, dated 28.3.2013 for the assessment year 2010-2011.

¶10

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J

¶11

The Revenue has come up with the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law :

¶12

"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the receipt from the sale of tree trunks/wood does not constitute income from business on the ground that there is no re-generation of income ?

¶13

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in not considering the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ambat Echukutty Menor [120 ITR 70] relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order ? and

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in relying on the decision of the High Court in the assessee's own case wherein the High Court has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Vishnudatta Antharjana Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax [78 ITR 58] and V.Venugopal Varma Rajah Vs. CIT [(1970) 96 ITR 460] and when these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the case ?"

¶16

Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

¶17

In the order impugned in the above appeal, the Tribunal followed its own earlier decision as against the very same assessee for the earlier assessment year. That order of the Tribunal has now attained finality by a decision rendered on 8.9.2014 by this Court in CIT Vs. Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co.Ltd. [(2015) 229 Taxmann 200].

¶18

Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench
Madras
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore

¶19