COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJSHREE SUGAR AND CHEMICALS

PDF · subscribers
TCA/321/2022HC Madras2022/MHC/570721 November 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice S. VAIDYANATHAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant (revenue) have already been answered by this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. reported in [2021] 434 ITR 671 (Madras) in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that although the Income Tax Department had preferred an appeal (SLP Appeal (C) No. 16544 of 2021) against the Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. judgment, the High Court was not inclined to admit the present appeal as the issue, as of that date, stood covered in favour of the respondent (assessee). Therefore, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed. The Court also stated that if the Hon'ble Supreme Court reverses the order in the Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. case, it would be open for the Department to re-open the issue in the present case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore (appellant/revenue) against the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai (respondent/assessee). The assessee is M/s. Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. The appeal challenges the decision of the ITAT. The High Court noted that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant had been previously answered by the same court in favour of the assessee in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. The revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. judgment, but the High Court was not inclined to admit the present appeal as the issue was covered in favour of the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant (revenue) are to be decided in favour of the revenue or the assessee. The revenue contended that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal have been answered by the High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. in favour of the assessee. The revenue's argument was that since this precedent exists, the present appeal should be dismissed. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue against this precedent or for admitting the appeal on merits. The assessee's position, as implied by the court's reasoning, is that the issue is covered by the Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. decision.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A. No. 321 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.11.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN T.C.A. No.321 of 2022 Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. ..Appellant Vs. M/s. Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., "The Uffizi", No. 338, Avinashhi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004. PAN: AABCR 4179D ..Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal as against the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in ITA No. 873/Chny/2017 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 1\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 321 of 2022 For Appellant :: Mr.M. Swaminathan For Respondent :: Mr.R. Venkatnarayanan J U D G M EN T S. VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND C. SARAVANAN,J. In this appeal, the appellant has raised substantial questions of law. It is noticed that the substantial questions of law that have been raised by the appellant have been answered by this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai V. Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd reported in [2021] 434 ITR 671 (Madras) in favour of the assessee. 2. Though the Income Tax Department has preferred an appeal in SLP Appeal (C) No. 16544 of 2021, we are not inclined to admit this appeal as the issue, as of now, stands covered in favour of the respondent. Hence, the tax case appeal stands dismissed. In case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 321 of 2022 reverses the order of this Court, then it is open to the Department to re-open the issue in the above case. No costs. (S.V.N.J.) (C.S.N.J.) nv 21.11.2022 3\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 321 of 2022 S. VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND C. SARAVANAN,J. nv T.C.A. No. 321 of 2022 21.11.2022 4\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →