M/S. SUPER SPINNING MILLS LT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I

1 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 09.7.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.438 of 2019 M/s.Super Spinning Mills Limited, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-1(2), Coimbatore. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to set aside the order dated 28.3.2018 made in ITA.No.3199/Chny/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2000-2001. For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC & Mrs.K.G.Usharani Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondent. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2. This appeal, filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directed against the order dated 28.3.2018 in ITA.No.3199/Chny/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2000-2001. 3. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in ignoring the decision of the Coordinate Bench especially in the light of the ratio/principles laid down by this Court reported in 110 ITR 453 ? ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in treating the expenses incurred on the replacement of machinery and machinery parts as capital expenditure by overlooking the perverse factual findings of the respondent on the functions of the replaced items in the manufacturing process of textile yarn within the scope of Section 37(1) of the Act? iii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in ignoring the limited scope of the second round proceedings consequent to the decision of the Apex Court dated 10.10.2011 while not granting proper opportunity to the appellant defying the principles of natural justice ? iv. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is permitted to ignore the subsequent decision of the Apex Court on the same issue reported in 190 Taxmann 294, which resolved the conflict and also http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the stand of the Revenue on the issue on hand ? v. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in treating the expenses on replacement of machinery and machinery parts as capital expenditure despite there is no increase in production capacity, thereby negating the presumption of enduring benefit in incurring such expenses ?” 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal, the assessee filed a miscellaneous petition, that the same was allowed, that the impugned order had been recalled and that the appeal has been posted for fresh hearing and disposal. 5. Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that he has no instructions in the matter. 6. In any event, we record the said submission of the learned counsel for the assessee and dismiss this tax case appeal as being unnecessary. The substantial questions are left open. No costs. 09.7.2019 Internet: Yes To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-1(2), Coimbatore. RS http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.438 of 2019 09.7.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in