STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I

PDF · subscribers
TCA/826/2018HC Madras31 January 2020Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice N. KIRUBAKARAN6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that while the assessee raised the issue of the Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263, particularly when an appeal had already been filed and heard by the Appellate Commissioner, and the Tribunal went into the merits, it did not decide the jurisdiction point. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is a critical factor in deciding a matter. Therefore, the Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue of jurisdiction. The substantial questions of law were answered accordingly. The appeal was allowed with this direction, and no costs were imposed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., engaged in providing and maintaining industrial complexes, declared a total income of Rs. 2,34,27,15,090/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. Their case was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment order was passed on March 24, 2016, with additions. This order was subsequently set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 on March 9, 2018, with a direction to redo the assessment. The assessee challenged this action before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which dismissed the appeal on July 19, 2018. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

The High Court admitted the appeal on three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT's order was perverse for not properly considering the assessee's submissions and materials regarding the Principal Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and erroneously concluding that the assessee failed to provide relevant documents for deduction under Section 80IA? 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in not holding that the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the Assessing Officer's order, violating the 'doctrine of merger' and exceeding jurisdiction under Explanation 1(c) to Section 263(1), as the issue was already subject to appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer erroneously allowed excess deduction under Section 80IA? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 263, especially when an appeal against the assessment order had already been filed and decided by the Appellate Commissioner. They also contended that the ITAT, while going into the merits, failed to decide the crucial issue of jurisdiction. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 143(2),Section 263,Section 80IA,Section 263(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 31.01.2020 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. PAN: AAACS 4643J ... Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 6(2), No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. ... Respondent PRAYER : Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai dated 19.07.2018 passed in I.T.A.No.1311/CHNY/2018. For Appellant :Mr.G.Baskar For Respondent :Mr.J.Narayanasamy Senior standing counsel 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J) The Appellant company has been engaged with providing and maintaining of industrial complexes/parks with basic infrastructure like roads, street lights etc., and the appellant has declared total income of Rs.2,34,27,15,090/- for the Assessment years 2013-14. The appellant's case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) dated 04.09.2014 had been issued and assessment was completed on 24.03.2016 by making additions. The said assessment order was set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment on 09.03.2018 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6. The same was challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Assessee/Appellant, where the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal on 19.07.2018. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is challenged before this Court. 2.The Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 23.11.2018: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse in not considering the submissions made and the materials placed before it in the proper perspective in respect of jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but erroneously observing that the assessee had not filed the relevant documents to come to an exact conclusion in respect of the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not holding that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Assessing Officer, which is in violation of the 'doctrine of merger' and had exceeded in his jurisdiction in violation of Sub-Clause (c) under Explanation 1 to Section 263(1) of the Act in so far as the issue had already been the subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? and (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer had erroneously allowed excess deduction under Section 80IA of the Act? 3.Heard Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 4.It is evident from the records that though the appellant has raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner, under Section 263 to initiate suo motu revision especially when an appeal against Assessment Order has been filed and heard and order has been passed by the Appellate Commissioner and though the Tribunal went into the merits of the case, it has not decided about the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction point is an important point to decide the matter and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide about the jurisdiction. The above substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 5.With the above direction, the Appeal is allowed. No costs. (NKKJ) (PVJ) 31.01.2020 sai 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 6(2), No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and P.VELMURUGAN

, J.

sai T.C.A.No.826 of 2018 Dated : 31.01.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →