M/S LEO FASTENERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/1015/2015HC Madras18 August 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The assessee's counsel submitted a letter stating that the appeals had become infructuous. This was because a previous order by the same High Court, dated 10.7.2017, in a batch of appeals including those in the assessee's own case (reported as 398 ITR 462 (Mad.)), had allowed the appeals in favour of the assessee and granted complete relief regarding the deduction claimed under Section 80IB. Since the relief sought on merits had already been granted by the High Court in a related matter, the present appeals challenging the reassessment proceedings were dismissed as infructuous. The substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the assessee, M/s. Leo Fasteners, are directed against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2007-08. The appeals challenge the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry. The assessee raised several substantial questions of law concerning the validity of the reassessment, alleging it was based on a perverse finding of fact, a mere change of opinion, and improper exclusion of interest income from Section 80IB deductions. The appeals were listed for hearing before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding the reassessment valid on a perverse finding that details came to light as a result of a search, when no search occurred. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding the reopening valid when the reassessment was based solely on figures declared by the assessee in its return, constituting a mere change of opinion. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in excluding the entire interest income from the deduction claimed under Section 80IB, when the income was from margin money deposits inextricably linked to the business. 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the exclusion of gross interest income from Section 80IB deduction when the Assessing Officer had accepted net interest in the regular assessment. The assessee contended that the reassessment was invalid due to a perverse finding of fact, a change of opinion, and improper exclusion of interest income. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 18.8.2021 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Tax Case Appeal Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 & MP.No.1 of 2015 M/s.Leo Fasteners rep.by its partner

...Appellant Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders respectively dated 29.5.2015 and 30.9.2016 made in ITA.No.3098/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant: Mrs.G.Vardini Karthik For Respondent: Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSC COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

,J)

We have heard Mrs.G.Vardini Karthik, learned counsel appearing 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 for the appellant and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. These appeals are directed against the orders respectively dated 29.5.2015 and 30.9.2016 made in ITA.No.3098/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08. 3. The above appeals are filed by the assessee by raising the following substantial questions of law : “TCA.No.1015 of 2015 : i. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment is valid in law on a perverse finding of fact that the details came to light as a result of search, when there was no such search in the case of the appellant? ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening 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 already considered during regular assessment amounting to a mere change of opinion? 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 iii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the entire 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 iv. 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 reassessment when the Assessing Officer had accepted the inclusion of net interest in the regular assessment? And TCA.No.172 of 2017 : 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening was valid in law when the reassessment amounted to mere change of opinion? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the reassessment when it was framed only on the figures declared by the appellant in its computation of income filed along with return of income, already 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 considered during regular assessment? iii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the entire 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 iv. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the exclusion of the gross interest from the deduction under Section 80IB when the appellant had included only net interest in the computation?” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee has given a letter dated 17.8.2021 stating that the appeals have become infructuous. 5. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as follows : “It is submitted that the TCA.No.172 of 2017 was filed in January 2017 challenging the demand raised on account of reassessment proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court, in a batch of tax case appeals filed in the assessee's own case, vide order dated 10.7.2017, has allowed the appeals in favour of the appellant and has given complete relief 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 of the deduction claimed under Section 80IB. It is further stated that this Hon'ble High Court in TCA.No.1220 of 2010 on 10.7.2017 and the same has been reported in 398 ITR 462 (Mad.). Since the relief sought for on merits have been fully granted by this Hon'ble Court, the appeals filed by the appellant challenging the reassessment proceedings in TCA.Nos. 1015 of 2015 and 172 of 2017 have become infructuous.” 6. Recording the above communication, the above appeals are dismissed as infructuous. The substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is also dismissed. 18.8.2021

To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench. RS 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J RS TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015 and 172 of 2017 18.8.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →