M/S GEE CITY BUILDERS P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE, LUDHIANA

ITA No. 417 of 2016 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No. 417 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.4.2017

M/s Gee City Builders Private Limited

……Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle, Ludhiana

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Lalchandani,

Advocate for the appellant-assessee.

Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing counsel for the respondent-

revenue.

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.

CM No. 26034-CII of 2016

ITA No. 417 of 2016

ITA No. 417 of 2016 (O&M) 2

both the appeals. However, the facts are being extracted from the ITA No.417 of 2016. 4. The appellant-assessee has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 01.06.2016, Annexure P.3, passed under Section 254(1) of the Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh “SMC” Bench, Chandigarh (in short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 422/CHD/2016, for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in hearing and deciding this case in SMC, whereas the same ought to have been heard by the Division Bench of the Tribunal?

(ii) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Tribunal in SMC is without jurisdiction?

(iii) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in concluding that the provisions of Section 115JB(6) are not applicable in the instant case?”

(iv) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in giving a restrictive interpretation to the words of Section 115JB(6), without appreciating that the appellant meets all the criterias/conditions as specified in the said sub-section?

(v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order by the Tribunal is bad in law and perverse?

assessment year 2008-09 on 04.03.2009 declaring income of ` 2,20,013/- . The Assessing Officer framed the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act and assessed total income of the assessee at ` 12,74,720/-. The Assessing Officer computed income under MAT at ` 96,28,336/- under Section 115JB of the Act. . The assessee was having income from sale of its flats, which was exempt under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. The deduction under the said section was allowed to the assessee. The assessee claimed that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act were not applicable. The claim of the assessee that by virtue of Section 115JB(6) of the Act, it was not entitled to pay the tax under the MAT provisions, was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 10.02.2016, Annexure P.2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 01.06.2016, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by assessee. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee.

ITA No. 417 of 2016 (O&M) 4

passed by the Tribunal be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

ITA No. 417 of 2016 (O&M) 5

and the said limit was increased to ` 5,00,000/- by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 effective from 1.10.1998. Finance Act, 2015 effective from 1.6.2015 has prescribed the limit of ` 15,00,000/- which again was modified to ` 50,00,000/- by Finance Act, 2016 made applicable from 1.6.2016. The relevant portion of Section 255 of the Act as applicable as on date is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “255.(1) The powers and functions of the Appellate Tribunal may be exercised and discharged by Benches constituted by the President of the Appellate Tribunal from among the members thereof. (2). Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (3), a Bench shall consist of one judicial member and one accountant member. (3). The President or any other member of the Appellate Tribunal authorized in this behalf by the Central Government may, sitting singly, dispose of any case which has been allotted to the Bench of which he is a member and which pertains to an assessee whose total income as computed by the Assessing Officer in the case does not exceed fifty lakh rupees and the President may, for the disposal of any particular case, constitute a Special Bench consisting of three or more members, one of whom shall necessarily be a judicial member and one an accountant member. (4) to (6) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

(3) of Section 255 of the Act. The appeal was decided on 01.06.2016 on which date, the limit for hearing appeal by learned Single Member of the Tribunal would be taken at ` 50,00,000/- as the amended provision of sub section (3) of Section 255 of the Act by Finance Act 2016 was made operative from 1.6.2016 itself.

(Ajay Kumar Mittal)

Judge

April 26, 2017

(Ramendra Jain)

‘gs’

Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned

Yes Whether reportable

Yes