The High Court dismissed special leave petitions filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act as infructuous because the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal subsequently allowed rectification petitions in favour of the assessee for the assessment years under consideration.
The tax case appeals were dismissed as infructuous. No costs were awarded.
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 : 03.08.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
M/s.Leo Fasteners, Rep., by its Partner, A-27A, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry-9. PAN – AABFL0652J
.. Appellant in both Appeals
-vs-
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry.
.. Respondent in both Appeals
Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 29.05.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1223/Mds/2014 and I.T.A.No.3097/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively.
Prayer in TCA 1014/15:
Prayer in TCA 1013/15:
For Appellant : Ms.Vardini Karthik (In both Appeals) For Respondent : J.Narayanasamy, (In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
These appeals, by the appellant/assessee, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are directed against the order dated 29.05.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1223/Mds/2014 and I.T.A.No.3097/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively.
2.C.M.A.No.1013 of 2015 has been admitted on 17.11.2015, on the following substantial questions of law:-
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-assessment is valid in law on a perverse finding of fact that the details came into light as a result of search, when there was no such search in the case of the appellant?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-opening was valid in law when the reassessment order itself was framed only on the figures declared by the appellant in its computation of income filed along with the return of income, when the same is a mere change of opinion?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the interest income from the deduction claimed under Section 80IB, when the income earned by the appellant was from the margin money deposits which were inextricably linked to the business of the appellant? and
4.Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the exclusion of the gross interest income from the computation of deduction under Section 80IB by way of re-assessment, when the assessing officer had accepted the inclusion of net interest in the regular assessment?”
3.C.M.A.No.1014 of 2015 has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:-
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-assessment beyond four years is valid in law on a perverse finding of fact that the details came into light as a result of search, when there was no such search in the case of the appellant?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-opening beyond four years was valid in law when the re-assessment order itself was framed only on the figures declared by the appellant in its computation of income filed along with the return of income, when there is no allegation of suppression of facts?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the interest income from the deduction claimed under Section 80IB, when the income earned by the appellant was from the margin money deposits which were inextricably linked to the business of the appellant? and
4.Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the exclusion of the gross interest income from the computation of deduction under Section 80IB by way of re-assessment, when the assessing officer had accepted the inclusion of net interest in the regular assessment?”
4.Heard Ms.Vardini Karthik, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee has circulated a letter dated 03.08.2021, stating that the appeals have become infructuous, as the Tribunal in the rectification petitions filed by the assessee, has allowed the appeals in favour of the assessee for the assessment years under consideration.
6.The submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is placed on record and the tax case appeals are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
To
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
SRII (CO) PR (02/09/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeals are maintainable after the Tribunal allowed the rectification petitions in favour of the assessee.
Whether the re-assessment beyond four years was valid.
Whether the exclusion of interest income from Section 80IB deduction was correct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Leo Fasteners
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry
T.S.Sivagnanam
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
