THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAND HOTEL MAHARAJA PVT.LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1126/2009HC KeralaKLHC01025887200905 September 2016Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee, Island Hotel Maharaj Pvt. Ltd., continued to exist as a legal entity despite changes in shareholding, board of directors, and business restructuring. The Court noted that the assessee possessed the FL-3 licence for the relevant year, indicating the continuation of its business. Therefore, it was concluded that there was no cessation of business that would disentitle the assessee from claiming carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Court found no reason to disagree with the orders of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court held that the order of the Tribunal did not give rise to any substantial questions of law to be considered under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin) filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, for the assessment year 1998-1999. The ITAT had confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had set aside the Assessing Officer's order. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the assessee's claim for loss for the year and the carry-forward of previous losses. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on an agreement between the assessee and another company, investments made, share subscriptions, new directors, demolition of a building, and implementation of a new project, leading to the conclusion of cessation of business. The assessee is Island Hotel Maharaj Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is eligible for carry forward of losses under Section 72 read with Section 80 of the Income Tax Act and unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32, despite the circumstances. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no cessation of business, considering the assessee did not produce books of accounts for the Bar Hotel/business pursuant to a notice under Section 142(1) before the Assessing Officer or appellate authority. 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee paid the bar licence fee, contrary to the Assessing Officer's finding that 'Indus' was to pay it, was unsupported by evidence and perverse. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in interfering with the Assessing Officer's order, and if its order was unsupported by evidence and materials. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments, but it addresses the Tribunal's findings which were in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that there was a cessation of business due to significant changes in the company's structure, investments, and business operations, which should disentitle the assessee from carrying forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 72,Section 80,Section 32,Section 142(1),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938 ITA.No. 1126 of 2009 ( ) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 159(COCH)/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 11-10-2007 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): -------------- ISLAND HOTEL MAHARAJ PVT.LTD., WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN-682 003. R,R BY ADV. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN R,R BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN R,R BY ADV. SMT.C.K.SHERIN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 1126 of 2009 ( ) : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 10.03.1994 BETWEEN 'MAHARAJ' AND 'INDUS' (OBEROI GROUP). ANNEXURE B : COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 24.01.2001 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99. ANNEXURE C : COPY OF ORDER DT. 15.10.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE D : COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.10.2007 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.159/COCH/2005. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rv ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- I.T. Appeal No. 1126 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of September, 2016.

JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J. This appeal is filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No. 159 (COCH) 2005 pertaining to the assessment year 1998- 1999. 2. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee.

3.

The questions of law framed for the consideration of this Court are the following:

1.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of carry forward of losses under Section 72 read with Section 80 of the I.T.Act as well as unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32 of the I.T. Act?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the assessee did not produce books of accounts of the Bar Hotel/business pursuant to the notice under Section 142(1) before the Assessing Officer or before the appellate authority the Tribunal is right in relying on the submissions of the assessee and in holding that there is no cessation of business?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and -2- in the light of the finding of the Assessing Officer that “the annual licence fee for the Bar was to be paid by Indus” the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that “ it is seen that the assessee has paid the bar licence fee” and is not the finding unsupported by any evidence and perverse?

4.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and for the reason given by the Assessing Officer in the considered order the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the order of the Assessing Officer and is not the order of the Tribunal unsupported by evidence and materials?”

4.

The issue that is required to be answered in this case is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) interfering with the order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the claim of loss for the year in question and that of brought forward losses. A reading of the assessment order itself shows that on the basis of the agreement entered into between the assessee and another company, investments were made in the assessee company and shares were also subscribed by new persons. The Assessing Officer has also referred to the fact that new Directors were also inducted into the Board of Directors of the assessee and that the entire character of the business of the assessee had undergone sea change. According to the Assessing Officer, during the said period building was demolished -3- and a new project was under implementation. On these facts, the Assessing Officer concluded that there was cessation of business justifying disallowance of the claim of loss and that of carry forward losses. It was this order of the Assessing Officer which was set aside by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal.

5.

Although the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue sought to impugn the findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, we find that the assessee, a legal entity, despite the agreement that is referred to by the Assessing Officer and the inflow of external funds and changes in the share pattern and Board of Directors, continued to exist as a legal entity. It is also the admitted factual position that during the relevant year, FL-3 licence issued under the Foreign Liquor Rules was possessed by the assessee. Therefore, despite the renovation or reconstruction that was going on and the changes that have occurred in the structure of the company, it cannot be said that there was cessation of business disentitling the assessee for the benefits in question. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree with the order passed by the first appellate authority as confirmed by the Tribunal. According to us, in the above -4- background, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any questions of law to be considered by this Court in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv -5-

More judgments on Section 72

All 386 judgments and leading authorities on Section 72 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →