Circle I I ( I )., Ilangalore v. Acc Multi Axes Svstems Limitedr,And Where Tlrc Hon'ble Supreme Cou(, In Paragrrrph Nos.2T To 23Has Held As U Ndcr'

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NOS: [223][ oF ][2008 AND 210 ][0F ][2010] INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 223 [2008] lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section [2604 ][of the lncome ][Tax ][Act,1 ][961]against the Order dated 2910212008 [passed ][in ] [No.871/HYD/06 ][for ][the]Assessment Year 2003-2004 on the file of the [lncome Tax Appellate ][Tribunal,]Hyderabad Bench ['A', ]Hyderabad. Between: Mis. Sarvotham Care Limited,, Secunderabad ...APPELLANT AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Circle-3(1), [Hyderabad] ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. S RAVI Counsel for the Respondent: SMT. K MAMATA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL [NO: ]210 [2010] lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section [2604 ][of the lncome ][Tax Act,1961]against the Order dated 18/06/2009 [passed ][in ] [No.804/HYD/06 ][for ][the]Assessment Year 2OO4-2OO5 [on ][the ][file ]of [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal']Hyderabad Bench ['A', ]Hyderabad. ,.;), Between: M/S, SAI]VOTHAM CARE LTD, A COTUPANY,the provisions of theCompanre ,s Act 1956 having its registered officeat 1 20-248, UmajayComplex Rasoolpura, Secunderabad, rep by itsIt4anaging Director Mr.M.lrlohan Krishna, S/o. Sri M.t\,4.Jaya ..APPELLANT AND DEPUTY [,IOMMISSIONER ]OF INCOME TAX, Circle-3 r 1), Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. CH PUSHYAM KIRAN Counsel forthe Respondent: SMT. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENtOR SCrNcoME TAX)rNcoME TAX) The Court delive,red the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SIU JUSTICE NANDIKONDA I.T.T.A.Nos.223 OF 2008 & 210 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT[(per ]Hon'ble [Sri Justice ][l'.Sam ][Koshy)] IJeard Ms. B. Nishitha, learned counscl representingMr. S. Ravi, lcamed counsel fbr the petitioner ancl [Ms. ][B. ][Sapna]l{cddy, Iealned Senior Standing Counsel tbl lncorne [l'ax]Dcparlment appearing fbr the respondent. Perused the record2. These appeals have bcen fited by the assessec under [Section]260-A of the lncome Tax Act, l96l [(for ]short'the Act'), assailingthe orders, dated 29.02.2008 and 18.06.2009, [passed]lltI.'l'.A.Nos.87liHydl06 and I.T.A.No.804iHydl06, by the lncomcTax Appellate Tlibuna[, IJydetabad, (for short, ['thc ]['l'r'ibunal'),]Bench ['A]for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05respectively, so far as the petitioner is entitled fbr thc beneflt underSection 80lB of thc Act, even after losing its character of [small]scale industry. 3. Today, when the mattel is tekgn up for [hearing, ]learnedcounsel for the panies brought [to ][the ][notice ][ol ][this ][Court that ]the 'l'hree Judgc Bench decision ol'the Hon'ble Su treme Court dealt ivith t re said issue in f)eputv Commissioncr of Income ['fax,] Circle I I ( I )., Ilangalore v. Acc Multi Axes Svstems Limitedr,and where tlrc Hon'ble Supreme Cou(, in paragrrrph Nos.2t to 23has held as u ndcr' '21 In vicu, of the abovc judgrnents. wc <kr :rot see any<liflcrcncc in thc situatiou rvhcrc the asscsscc, is not iuitiallyt ligrblc, or u,hero the asscsscc though initially cligibLc loses thcrluali[ication oi eligibility in subsequelt asscss]rcnt ycars. In[,oth sLrch sltuatlons, priuciPle of intcrplctation ['cmains ]thos aIIC. !2. Thus, rvhilc there is no conflict u,ith thc thatlrrinciple irterlrct:rtiou has h bc givcrr to advance thc objctt of lau,, int re l)rcscnl casc, the assessec having not rctaincrl thc charactercf "surall-scale industrial undertaking", is not cligible kr theirccntrrc rncant fbr that catcgttry. Pennitting inccttive il suchcasc urll bc against the objcct of larv. '21 In vicu, of the abovc judgrnents. wc <kr :rot see any<liflcrcncc in thc situatiou rvhcrc the asscsscc, is not iuitiallyt ligrblc, or u,hero the asscsscc though initially cligibLc loses thcrluali[ication oi eligibility in subsequelt asscss]rcnt ycars. In[,oth sLrch sltuatlons, priuciPle of intcrplctation ['cmains ]thos aIIC. !2. Thus, rvhilc there is no conflict u,ith thc thatlrrinciple irterlrct:rtiou has h bc givcrr to advance thc objctt of lau,, int re l)rcscnl casc, the assessec having not rctaincrl thc charactercf "surall-scale industrial undertaking", is not cligible kr theirccntrrc rncant fbr that catcgttry. Pennitting inccttive il suchcasc urll bc against the objcct of larv. 23. Iior the above lcasons. wc hold that thc al:icscc ts notentitlccl to bcnclit of exetnptiorl if it loses its cl 11ibility as asmall scalc induslrial undcdaking in a particLrlir assesstncnt)ear [cvcn ][if ][in ][initial ][year ][clrgibility ][r.vas ][satrsficd"] l'he IIon'ble Supreme Courl in the abo,,c case decided that the ass,:ssee. in such circuntstances would nol bc entitled fbr the '(zors) [z ][;cc rss] benefit under Section 80IB [fiom ]the [moment ]it [loses its ][character]from the small-scale industry. 4. ln view of the above, these two appeals stand [decided] against the assessee in favour of the [revenue.] 5. Accordingly, both the appcals stands rejected. [There ][shall ][be]no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][il ][any, ][shall] stand closed. D/- A.V.S. DUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE ECTION To, The lncome [Tax Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad Bench ]['A" ][Hyderabad] I One CC to [SRl. ] [RAVI Advocate ][ ] 2 One CC to [SMT. ] [Advocate ] 3 One CC to [SRl. CH PUSHYAM ] [Advocate ][ ] 4 oneCCtoSMT'BoKARoSAPNAREDDY(SENIoRScINCoMETAX) 5 6Two CD [CoPies] TPK/gh S,- ---> HIGH COLIRT iI\-G^.'\\lt19 sEP 2025[,)lr/ DATED:2610612025 COMMON JUDGMENT lTTA.Nos.1l23 o12008 and 210 of 2010 ITTA ARE REJECTED I[,fl^]ff-w