M/S. Ideal Garden Complex (P) Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle, Salem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAOAND THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH M/s. Ideal Garden Complex (P) Ltd., 7/54, Junction Main Road, Five Roads, Salem - 636 004. ... Appellant in all TCAsVersus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle, Salem. ... Respondent in all TCAs Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench, Chennai, dated 08.08.2014 in ITANos.634/Mds/2014, 635/Mds/2014, 636/Mds/2014, and 637/Mds/2014for the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06,against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Salemdated 26.12.2013 made in I.T.A.No.180/2010-11 (In TCA.780 of2016), I.T.A.No.181/2010-11 (In TCA.781 of 2016), I.T.A.No.182/2010-11 (In TCA.782 of 2016), I.T.A.No.183/2010-11 (In TCA.783 of 2016) respectively, arising out of the Order of theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle, Salemdated 28.12.2010, made in PAN/GIR.No. /1DCI0001. For Appellant: Mr.Venkat Narayanan in all TCAs for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar COMMON JUDGMENT(Delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO., J) These four Tax Case Appeals are preferred by the Assesseeunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved bythe common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B'Bench, Chennai, dated 08.08.2014 in ITA Nos.634/Mds/2014,635/Mds/2014, 636/Mds/2014, and 637/Mds/2014 for the AssessmentYears 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Assessee has raised the following two substantialquestions of law for determination in these Tax Case Appeals:-(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theTribunal was justified in upholding the reassessment?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in upholding the assessment of the incomereceived by the appellant by sub-leasing of already leased outproperty as Income from House Property and not Income fromBusiness? 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed by us now, itmay not be really relevant or necessary to deal with the factsituation. In paragraph 6 of the orders passed by the Tribunal,it had noticed that for the Assessment Years 1992-93 to 1997-98,when the Assessee has called in question the correctness of theview taken by the Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court byits Judgment dated 20.09.2011, dismissed the appeals preferredby the Assessee and allowed the appeal preferred by the Revenueand answered the question in favour of the Revenue. When theAssessee carried the matter further by preferring an appeal tothe Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by its order dated 9.4.2015dismissed the SLP No.19013-19018 of 2012. The Review Applicationmoved therein by the Assessee was also dismissed by the SupremeCourt in Review Petition (C) Nos. 1531-1536 of 2015, on23.07.2015. 5. We are, therefore, of the view that these appeals are aredundant exercise indulged in by the Assessee as this Court hasalready answered these very questions against the assessee andin favour of the Revenue and hence all the four Tax Case Appealsfail and they are dismissed at the admission stage itself. gr //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) No.3, Gandhi Road, Salem 07. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle, Salem. Company Circle, Salem. +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.65769 +3cc's to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.Nos.65786, 65771 & 65770 (19.01.2017) T.C.A.Nos.780 to 783 of 2016EV(CO)CA(16/12/2016)