Ita/75/2018 Of M/S Metahelix Life Sciences Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 22 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN. "INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS,/5/J6 OF 201 BETWEEN: | M/S. METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED|(SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TOM/S. DHAANYA SEEDS LTD.),PLOT NO.3, KIDB, 4 PHASE,BOMMASANDRA,BENGALURU,(REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO &EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,SRI S. NAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,S/O. SRI P.S. SWAMINATHAN). .., APPELLAN | | (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.CIRCLE-1(1)(1),2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,SOFT ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU. 2 |THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF |INCOME-T ACIRCLE-4(1)(2),2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,SOFT ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU. ~.. RESPONDENTS THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS ARE FILED UNDERSECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,|PRAYING|TO.FORMULATETHE.SUBSTANTIALQUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THEAPPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH,|BENGALURU, IN ITA NOS.836 & 958/BANG/2016|DATED 30-11-2701 / THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS COMING ON FORADMISSIONTHISDAY,RAVIMALIMATH,|J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellant is a_ private limited Companyengaged in the business of production and marketing of nybrid 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 detalls. 2. Thereafter, the respondent passed the|assessment order for the year 2012-13. Additions|Weremade.tOtheextent|ofRs.3/7,64,47,807. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the|Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, ‘the|C.1.T. (A)'| whicn was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the|Same, an appeal was preferred to the Tribunal by the|assessee as well as tne Revenue. Tne 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 nave remanded tne 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.L.T.|(A) is incorrect. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant|and examined tne record. | 5. The Tribunal assigned reasons for remandingthe matter in paragrapn No.2, which reads as under: “2. At the very outset, it was submittedby the learned AR of the assessee that oneof the grounds raised by the assessee isthis that the assessment order passed inthe name of nonexistent company is voidand it is an incurable defect in tne eyes oflaw. At this juncture, the bencn wanted toknow the finding of CIT (A) on this issue.He submitted that the learned CIT (A) nasdecided this issue as per Para 9.1 of hisorder. The bench observed that this orderof CIT (A) in Para 9.1 of his order is verycryptic because from the same, it is not coming out as to what are tne objectionsof the assessee and what is the finding ofCIT (A) in respect of the objections andtherefore, the matter has to go back to his|file for a fresn decision by way of aspeaking and reasoned order and nence,the issue on merit in both these appealsneed no adjudication at tne present stagebecause the [issue on merit has to bedecided 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:| coming out as to what are tne objectionsof the assessee and what is the finding ofCIT (A) in respect of the objections andtherefore, the matter has to go back to his|file for a fresn decision by way of aspeaking and reasoned order and nence,the issue on merit in both these appealsneed no adjudication at tne present stagebecause the [issue on merit has to bedecided 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 nas raised certain legalgrounds, witn regard to the correctness ofthe exact assessable entity-post-merger.The issue nas been perused. There is noillegality found in the assessment orderunder reference. The AO, in his order u/s. |143(3) nas passed the same on M/s.Dnaanya Seeds Limited (now merged andknown as Metahelix Life Sciences Limited), whereas the appellant himself designatesthe entity as M/s. Metanelix Life SciencesLtd (successor of M/s. Dnaanya SeedsLtd.). There is no material difference oraiscrepancySO|dstOvitiate the|assessment as a wnole on tnis ground.The PAN No. quoted by tne AO is the sameas done by the appellant. |A mere reversa]in _tne order _of tne previous and nnames, aoes not take away from tne fact,that, the issue of merger has been clearlynignlighnted by the AO. This ground of thappeal is accordingly aisallowed.[L 7. Tnerefore, the Tribunal was of the view that.tne order passed by the C.I.T. (A) is very cryptic and ts|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.1.T. (A) to enable nim 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 afresh consideration, on.reasons, which.wei findacceptable. Therefore, we do not find any ground in|this appeal. 8. Further, the appellant's counsel relies on tnejudgment in the case of DELL INTERNATIONAL|SERVICESINDIA|(P. )LTD.VIASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER.OFINCOME.TAX|reported1(2016) 382 ITR 37 (KARN)|] with reference toparagrapn No.8 and contends that the Tribunal ougnt|to nave arrived at a conclusion ratner than remanding|the matter further back to the Assessing Officer. We|nave considered the said judgment. However, the.facts narrated tnerein would indicate that tne matter|was _ initially remanded by the High Court to thTribunal for a fresh consideration, but the Tribunal|further remanded the matter back to the Assessing| In | 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/- | JUDGE SD/-|JUDGE KVK|