ACIT, MADURAI vs. LAXMI SELVARAAJ TEX PRIVATE LTD., MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2271/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision is binding on all authorities, and the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not justify ignoring it. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s order was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals)'s order allowing the carry forward of business loss. The assessee had filed their return of income after the due date. The CIT(Appeals) followed a High Court decision allowing such claims.

What were the issues?

Whether business loss can be carried forward when the return of income is filed after the due date, and if a High Court decision remains binding despite an SLP pending in the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 02.05.2017Pronounced: 31.05.2017

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. : 2271/Mds/2015 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year :2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner of Income M/s. Laxmi Selvaraaj Tex Tax, v. Private Ltd., Corporate Circle I, No.9/7B, Dindigul Road, Madurai. Vilangudi, Madurai – 625 018. PAN: AABCL5470H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : None सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai dated 18.09.2015 and pertains to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is carry forward of business loss, when the return was not filed U/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. vs. ITO, 236 CTR 204 allowed the claim of the assessee. According to the Ld. DR, the Revenue has filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Apex court against the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentamedia Graphics Ltd supra. Therefore the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court ought not have been followed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). According to the Ld. DR, the due date for filing of return of income was 30.09.2010. In fact the return was filed on 17.05.2011. Since the return was not filed within the due date, according to the Ld.DR the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.

3.

No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice through department. The Ld. DR has placed the copy of acknowledgement as a proof of service of notice. Inspite of service of notice, no one appeared before this Tribunal when the appeal is taken up for hearing. Therefore after hearing the Ld.DR, this appeal is being disposed off on merits.

4.

Having heard the Ld.DR, this Tribunal finds that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) after reproducing the observation made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Pentamedia Graphics Ltd supra allowed the claim of the assessee. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Hon’ble Madras High court being the Jurisdictional High Court, it is binding on all authorities. The mere pendency of SLP before the Apex Court cannot be a reason to ignore the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Since the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly the same is confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 31st May, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →