M/S METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/75/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01033345201822 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal remanded the matter because the CIT(A)'s order on a legal ground regarding the assessable entity was cryptic. The High Court found no substantial question of law and accepted the Tribunal's reasons for remand.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared nil income after setting off losses for AY 2012-13. Additions were made by the Assessing Officer, which were partly allowed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal then remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on a legal issue, and if the CIT(A)'s order was sufficiently reasoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 260-A

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.75-76 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

M/S. METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO M/S. DHAANYA SEEDS LTD.), PLOT NO.3, KIDB, 4TH PHASE, BOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU, (REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SRI S. NAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. SRI P.S. SWAMINATHAN). ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS

THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN ITA NOS.836 & 958/BANG/2016 DATED 30-11-2017.

THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The appellant is a private limited Company engaged in the business of production and marketing of hybrid seeds and other agricultural goods. For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee declared a nil income, after setting off loss of Rs.1,31,54,748. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for

short, ‘the Act’) was issued. A notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on various dates calling for various details.

2.

Thereafter, the respondent passed the assessment order for the year 2012-13. Additions were made to the extent of Rs.37,64,47,807. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, ‘the C.I.T. (A)’] which was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred to the Tribunal by the assessee as well as the Revenue. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the C.I.T. (A) for a fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal could not have remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. The Tribunal has failed to consider the reasons given by the C.I.T. (A) on merits

and therefore, remanding the matter only on the ground as narrated in paragraph No.9.1 of the C.I.T. (A) is incorrect.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record.

5.

The Tribunal assigned reasons for remanding the matter in paragraph No.2, which reads as under:

“2. At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that one of the grounds raised by the assessee is this that the assessment order passed in the name of nonexistent company is void and it is an incurable defect in the eyes of law. At this juncture, the bench wanted to know the finding of CIT (A) on this issue. He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has decided this issue as per Para 9.1 of his order. The bench observed that this order of CIT (A) in Para 9.1 of his order is very cryptic because from the same, it is not

coming out as to what are the objections of the assessee and what is the finding of CIT (A) in respect of the objections and therefore, the matter has to go back to his file for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order and hence, the issue on merit in both these appeals need no adjudication at the present stage because the issue on merit has to be decided after decision on legal aspect.”

6.

The reasons of the C.I.T. (A), which could be seen from paragraph No.9.1 of its order, reads as under:

“The appellant has raised certain legal grounds, with regard to the correctness of the exact assessable entity-post-merger. The issue has been perused. There is no illegality found in the assessment order under reference. The AO, in his order u/s. 143(3) has passed the same on M/s. Dhaanya Seeds Limited (now merged and known as Metahelix Life Sciences Limited),

whereas the appellant himself designates the entity as M/s. Metahelix Life Sciences Ltd (successor of M/s. Dhaanya Seeds Ltd.). There is no material difference or discrepancy so as to vitiate the assessment as a whole on this ground. The PAN No. quoted by the AO is the same as done by the appellant. A mere reversal in the order of the previous and new names, does not take away from the fact, that, the issue of merger has been clearly highlighted by the AO. This ground of the appeal is accordingly disallowed.”

7.

Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the order passed by the C.I.T. (A) is very cryptic and is not forthcoming as to what is the findings of the C.I.T.

(A) in respect of the objections, therefore, it is necessary that the matter was remanded to the C.I.T.

(A) to enable him to pass a speaking and reasoned order. We are of the view that, firstly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

Even otherwise, the matter has been remanded for a fresh consideration, on reasons, which we find acceptable. Therefore, we do not find any ground in this appeal.

8.

Further, the appellant’s counsel relies on the judgment in the case of DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA (P.) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in [(2016) 382 ITR 37 (KARN)] with reference to paragraph No.8 and contends that the Tribunal ought to have arrived at a conclusion rather than remanding the matter further back to the Assessing Officer. We have considered the said judgment. However, the facts narrated therein would indicate that the matter was initially remanded by the High Court to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, but the Tribunal further remanded the matter back to the Assessing

Officer. Therefore, we are of the view that the said judgment would not help the appellant, in any manner.

In the absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

SD/- JUDGE

JUDGE

kvk

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →