Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. P.s.velusamy

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.3.2016 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN TCA.Nos.217 to 222 of 2016 and CMP.Nos.3998 to 4002 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore...Appellant in all TCAs/AppellantVsP.S.Velusamy...Respondent in TCA.No.217/2016/RespondentM/s.Spictex Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Tirupur-2....Respondent in TCA.No.218/2016/RespondentM/s.Sakthi Murugan Agro FoodsLtd., Avinashi....Respondent in TCA.No.219/2016/RespondentM/s.Sri Ganapathy Murugan Spinning Mills Ltd., Somanur....Respondent in TCA.No.220/2016/RespondentM/s.Sueera Alloys Global (P). Ltd., Avinashi....Respondent in TCA.No.221/2016/RespondentM/s.Anand Textiles, Tirupur....Respondent in TCA.No.222/2016/Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 19.9.2014 respectively made inI.T.A.Nos.1660, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667 and 1669/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai forthe assessment year 2010-11 against the Order of theCommissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-II, Coimbatore, dated27/03/2014 in IT Appeal No.77/12-13, in IT Appeal No.166/12-13,IT Appeal No.149/12-13, Order dated 24/3/2014 in IT AppealNo.47/12-13 [TCA.No.220/2016] ITA.No.43/12-13[TCA.No.221/2016]Order dated 31/03/2014 in IT Appeal No.76/12-13[TCA No.222/2016] and against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxdated 30.11.2012 in P.A NO./G.1.R No.ABLPV 6651Q; dated11/02/2013 in PA.No./G.I.R No.AADC8164R, dated 12/02/2013 inPA.No/G.IR No.AACCSR473J, dated 30.11.2012 in PA.No.G.I.RNo.AAECS2342C dated 31/10/2012 in PA.No/GIR.No.AAGC67535B, anddated 31/12/2012 in PA.No/G.I.R No.AAHFA5867E. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.R.SivaramanCOMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) The Revenue has come up with the above appeals raising thefollowing substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law inholding that the assessee is entitled todeduction under Section 80IA without settingoff the losses/unabsorbed depreciationpertaining to the windmill, which were setoff in the earlier year against otherbusiness income of the assessee followingthe decision of the jurisdictional HighCourt in the case of M/s.VelayudhaswamySpinning Mills (340 ITR 477), when the sameis pending appeal before the Supreme Courtin SLP.Civil No. 1136 of 2011? (2) Whether under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the initial assessment year in Section80IA(5) would only mean the year of claim ofdeduction under Section 80IA and not theyear of commencement of eligible business ?and (3) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee has theoptiontochoosethefirst/initialassessment year of claim for deduction underSection 80IA ?" 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel forthe Department. Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel takes notice forthe respondents. 3. Even according to the learned Standing Counsel for theDepartment, this Court has consistently followed the decision inM/s.Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (340 ITR 477), despite theHonourable Supreme Court ordering notice. 4. Interestingly, on the basis of the decision inVelayudhaswamy Spinning Mills, the Central Board of Direct Taxeshas issued Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016. It will beuseful to extract the circular in entirety, which is as follows : "Circular No. 1 /2016Government of IndiaMinistry of FinanceDepartment of RevenueCentral Board of Direct TaxesNorth Block, New Delhi, the 15th February,2016 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel forthe Department. Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel takes notice forthe respondents. 3. Even according to the learned Standing Counsel for theDepartment, this Court has consistently followed the decision inM/s.Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (340 ITR 477), despite theHonourable Supreme Court ordering notice. 4. Interestingly, on the basis of the decision inVelayudhaswamy Spinning Mills, the Central Board of Direct Taxeshas issued Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016. It will beuseful to extract the circular in entirety, which is as follows : "Circular No. 1 /2016Government of IndiaMinistry of FinanceDepartment of RevenueCentral Board of Direct TaxesNorth Block, New Delhi, the 15th February,2016 Subject: Clarification of the term ‘initialassessment year' in Section 80IA(5) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 Section 801A of the Income-tax Act, 1961(‘Act’), as substituted by Finance Act, 1999with effect from 1.4.2000, provides fordeduction of an amount equal to 100% of theprofits and gains derived by an undertakingor enterprise from an eligible business (asreferred to in Sub-Section (4) of thatSection) in accordance with the prescribedprovisions. Sub-Section (2) of Section 801A https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further provides that the aforesaid deductioncan be claimed by the assessee, at hisoption, for any ten consecutive assessmentyears out of fifteen years (twenty years incertain cases) beginning from the year inwhich the undertaking commences operation,begins development or starts providingservices etc. as stipulated therein. Sub-Section (5) of Section 801A further providesas under : “Notwithstanding anything contained inany other provision of this Act, the profitsand gains of an eligible business to whichthe provisions of Sub-Section (1) applyshall, for the purposes of determining thequantum of deduction under that Sub-Sectionfor the assessment year immediatelysucceeding the initial assessment year or anysubsequent assessment year, be computed as ifsuch eligible business were the only sourceof income of the assessee during the previousyear relevant to the initial assessment yearand to every subsequent assessment year up toand including the assessment year for whichthe determination is to be made”. In the above Sub-Section, whichprescribes the manner of determining thequantum of deduction, a reference has beenmade to the term ‘initial assessment year’.It has been represented that some AssessingOfficers are interpreting the term ‘initialassessment year’ as the year in which theeligible business/manufacturing activity hadcommenced and are considering such first yearof commencement/operation etc. itself as thefirst year for granting deduction, ignoringthe clear mandate provided under Sub-Section(2) which allows a choice to the assessee fordeciding the year from which it desires toclaim deduction out of the applicable slab offifteen (or twenty) years. The matter has been examined by theBoard. It is abundantly clear from Sub-Section (2) that an assessee who is eligibleto claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option tochoose the initial/first year from which itmay desire the claim of deduction for tenconsecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen The matter has been examined by theBoard. It is abundantly clear from Sub-Section (2) that an assessee who is eligibleto claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option tochoose the initial/first year from which itmay desire the claim of deduction for tenconsecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen (or twenty) years, as prescribed under thatSub-Section. It is hereby clarified that oncesuch initial assessment year has been optedfor by the assessee, he shall be entitled toclaim deduction u/s 801A for ten consecutiveyears beginning from the year in respect ofwhich he has exercised such option subject tothe fulfillment of conditions prescribed inthe section. Hence, the term ‘initialassessment year’ would mean the first yearopted for by the assessee for claimingdeduction u/s 801A. However, the total numberof years for claiming deduction should nottransgress the prescribed slab of fifteen ortwenty years, as the case may be and theperiod of claim should be availed incontinuity. The Assessing Officers are, therefore,directed to allow deduction u/s 801A inaccordance with this clarification and afterbeing satisfied that all the prescribedconditions applicable in a particular caseare duly satisfied. Pending litigation onallowability of deduction u/s 80 IA shallalso not be pursued to the extent it relatesto interpreting ‘initial assessment year’ asmentioned in Sub-Section (5) of that sectionfor which the Standing Counsel/DRs besuitably instructed. The above be brought to the notice ofall Assessing Officers concerned." 5. Therefore, admittedly, questions of law 2 and 3 are alsocovered by the above circular. Hence, the appeals deserve to bedismissed. 6. Accordingly, the above tax case appeals are dismissed. Nocosts. 7. But, we cannot resist our temptation to record one morefact. If an issue is covered by the judgment of the High Court,it is always open to the Department to take it on appeal to theSupreme Court and get the law settled once and for all. But,once a decision is taken at the level of the Board, we do notknow why repeated appeals should be filed, only to meet with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same fate as that of a decision, on which, a circular has beenissued. The Department shall take note of this for futureguidance. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar rsTo 1.The Assistant RegistrarThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, III floor Rajaji BhavanBesant Nagar, Chennai-90 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IICoimbatore3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxeWard I(4) Tiruppur +6 ccs to Mr.T.R Senthil Kumar, Advocate sr.1719317194, 17195, 17196, 17197 & 17198 TCA.Nos.217 to 222 of 2016 &CMP.Nos.3998 to 4002 of 2016 ug(co)aa30/05/2016