Appellant In All Appeals v. M/S.atlantic Fabricss.f.nos.1658 & 1659Amaravathy Nagarandan Koil, Karur-639 002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.03.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.1050 to 1055 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Tiruchirappalli-1.... Appellant in all appeals Vs. M/s.Atlantic FabricsS.F.Nos.1658 & 1659Amaravathy NagarAndan Koil, Karur-639 002. ... Respondent in TCA 1050/2009 M/s.R.K.Textiles22 Kamarajapuram WestKarur-639 002. ... Respondent in TCA Nos. 1051 and 1052 of 2009 M/s.Asian Handlooms1-D Pugalur RoadKarur. ... Respondent in TCA 1053/2009 K.SubramanianProprietor, M/s.R.K.Exports22, Kamarajapuram West,Karur-639 002. ... Respondent in TCA 1054/2009 M/s.Parameshwari Textiles1-B, Kulathupalayam RoadVegamedu, Karur. ... Respondent in TCA 1055/2009 Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench dated 12.12.2008 in ITANos.947/Mds/2008, 841/Mds/2008, 842/Mds/2008, 843/Mds/2008,844/Mds/2008 and 946/Mds/2008, respectively. and against the O/o. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Trichymade in C.No.6143(1)CIT-1/TRY/2007-08 dated 19/03/2008 for theAssessment year 2007-08 and against the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome_Tax-Circle-II, Trichy in PAN/GIR.NO. /20-FA-26dated 28/02/2006 for the Assessment year 2003-04. and against the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, TrichirapalliC.No.6143(2)CIT-1/TRY/2007-08dated25/03/2008fortheAssessment year 2007-08 and against the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-Tax-Circle-II, Trichy in PAN/GIR.NO. (iv)-II Trydated 30/03/2006 for the Assessment year 2001-02. and against the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Trichy madein C.No.6143(3)/CIT-I/TRY/2007-08 dated 25/03/2008 for theAssessment year 2007-08 and against the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-Tax Trichy in PAN/GIR.NO. (iv)-II/Try dated24/03/2006 for the Assessment year 2003-04. 4.TCA.1053/2009 and against the O/o Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Trichirapalli and made in C.No.6143(4)CIT-I/TRY/2007-08 dated19/03/2008 for the Assessment year 2007-08 and against theDeputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-Circle-II, Trichy inPAN/GIR.NO.20-PA-24/(iv-II/Try dated 28/02/2006 for theAssessment year 2003-04. and against the O/o Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Trichirapalli and made in C.No.6143(5)CIT-I/TRY/2007-08 dated25/03/2008 for the Assessment year 2007-08 and against theDeputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-II, Trichirapalli inPAN.ABWPS6991D dated 17/03/2006 for the Assessment year 2003-04. and against the O/o Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Trichyand made in C.No.6143(6)CIT-I/TRY/2007-08 dated 19/03/2008 forthe Assessment year 2007-08 and against the Deputy Commissioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Income-Tax-Circle-II, Trichy in PAN/GIR.NO. /(iv)-II/ Try dated 22/03/2006 for the Assessment year 2003-04. For Appellant : Ms.V.Pushpa for Ms.S.Premalathain all appeals Standing Counsel for Income Tax Dept. For Respondent : Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn and in all appeals Mr.T.Vasudevan COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that thepresent appeals are directed against the orders passed by thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the learnedTribunal cancelled the orders passed by the learned Commissionerof Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act (“Act” inshort), for the Assessment Years in question, by which thelearned Commissioner had directed the Assessing Authority toexamine the claim of the assessees under Section 80HHC of theAct, as they are Supporting Manufacturers. For Appellant : Ms.V.Pushpa for Ms.S.Premalathain all appeals Standing Counsel for Income Tax Dept. For Respondent : Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn and in all appeals Mr.T.Vasudevan COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that thepresent appeals are directed against the orders passed by thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the learnedTribunal cancelled the orders passed by the learned Commissionerof Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act (“Act” inshort), for the Assessment Years in question, by which thelearned Commissioner had directed the Assessing Authority toexamine the claim of the assessees under Section 80HHC of theAct, as they are Supporting Manufacturers. 2.This Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichirappalli v. M/s.Asian Handlooms, Karur, vide judgmentdated 23.09.2013, in TC(A)Nos.1013, 401, 1106 and 567 of 2009,remanded the cases back to the Assessing Authority to considerthe case of the assessees for grant of benefit under Section80HHC of the Act, with the following observation: “13.Considering the pronouncement of the ApexCourt on this, we hold that the assessee's claim couldnot be rejected straightaway by the Revenue. Thus onthe findings given by the Assessing Officer that exportincentive was not part of the sale consideration, theonly aspect that has to be decided is how much was thevalue of the incentives received by the assessee as asupporting Manufacturer from the export house. To thatend, this Court feels that the matter demands remittalto the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee'sclaim and apply the decision of the Apex Court reportedin (2012) 342 ITR 49 in the case of Topman Exports Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, as stated above and passorders under the claim of the assessee under Section80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.14.In the result, the Tax Case (Appeals) standdisposed of with the above direction. No costs.”Court on this, we hold that the assessee's claim couldnot be rejected straightaway by the Revenue. Thus onthe findings given by the Assessing Officer that exportincentive was not part of the sale consideration, theonly aspect that has to be decided is how much was thevalue of the incentives received by the assessee as asupporting Manufacturer from the export house. To thatend, this Court feels that the matter demands remittalto the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee'sclaim and apply the decision of the Apex Court reportedin (2012) 342 ITR 49 in the case of Topman Exports Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, as stated above and passorders under the claim of the assessee under Section80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.14.In the result, the Tax Case (Appeals) standdisposed of with the above direction. No costs.” 3.Such view of this Court in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Trichirappalli v. M/s.Asian Handlooms, Karur, dated23.09.2013, was again reiterated by a Co-ordinate Bench of thisCourt in T.C.(A)Nos.212 to 214 of 2011 relating to the sameassessee in Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy v. M/s.AsianHandlooms, Karur on 28.01.2019 and the matters now standremitted to the Assessing Officer. 4.In view of this, the present appeals filed by the Revenueagainst the orders of the Tribunal cancelling the orders passedby the learned Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 ofthe Income Tax Act, have become infructuous. Therefore, wedispose of these appeals without answering the questions ashaving been rendered infructuous, with a liberty to theassessees to raise their claim under Section 80HHC of the Act onmerits, before the Assessing Authority, in accordance with law. 5.With this observation, these appeals are disposed of asinfructuous. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KM To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Circle-II, Trichirapalli. 4.In view of this, the present appeals filed by the Revenueagainst the orders of the Tribunal cancelling the orders passedby the learned Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 ofthe Income Tax Act, have become infructuous. Therefore, wedispose of these appeals without answering the questions ashaving been rendered infructuous, with a liberty to theassessees to raise their claim under Section 80HHC of the Act onmerits, before the Assessing Authority, in accordance with law. 5.With this observation, these appeals are disposed of asinfructuous. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KM To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Circle-II, Trichirapalli. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,Circle-II, Trichy. +6ccs to M/s.M.Swaminathan, Advocate sr.27631 to 27636Tax Case Appeal Nos.1050 to 1055of 2009 rr(co)nr 06/05/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/