The Bench held the Income Tax appeal filed under Section 260A infructuous due to a subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on merits
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.9.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Tax Case (Appeal) No.629 of 2017
M/s.KEC International Limited, (Formerly known as RPG Transmission Ltd.,) DLF City, Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002. Appellant
Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 034. Respondent
Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 29.12.2016 made in ITA No.431/Mds/2016 as agaisnt the order of the Commisioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Nungambakkam , Chennai 34 made in ITA.NO.99/2013-14 dated 11.12.2015 as against the order of the Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(4), Chennai in PAN NO.AABCS 2191 J dated 31.01.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel
The Revenue has filed this Tax Case under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act by raising the following purported substantial questions of law arising from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 29.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009:-
"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that reopening of assessment under Section 147 is
valid without considering the submissions of the appellant ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer can make a disallowance on an issue, which was not raised in the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147? And
(iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not following the decisions of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways(I) Ltd. [331 ITR 236] and the Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. CIT [336 ITR 136], which have held in favour of the assessee on the very same issue?"
"9. We considering the Apparent facts, material on record and judicial decisions are of the opinion that the re-assessment proceedings are valid and order of CIT(A) is set aside as there is no proper findings on the disputed issue and accordingly, we remit the entire issue to the file of the CIT(A) and to pass the order on merits with speaking order and assessee shall be provided an adequate opportunity of hearing before the disposal of the appeal."
Year 2008-2009, we are of the opinion that the present Appeal filed by the Assessee has become infructuous.
Therefore, leaving all the questions open, we dispose of the present Appeal as infructuous. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssk.
To,
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai,
2.The Commisioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8,
Room No.222,Ayyankar Bhavan,
Main Building,
II Floor,121, Mahatma gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam , Chennai 34
3.The Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(4),
Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.Subbraya Aiyar, Advocate SR.No. 29834
T.C.(A) No.629 of 2017
A.SK(06/11/2020)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. KEC International Limited
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai
Vineet Kothari
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
