M/S. India Cements Limited v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai – 2, Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.03.2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVANW.P.No. 21661 of 2015and M.P.No. 1 of 2015 and WMP.No.30963 of 2019 M/s. India Cements Limited,No.93, Coromandal Towers,Santhome High Road,Karpagam Avenue, R.A. Puram,Chennai – 600 028.Represented by its Sr.Vice President,R. Harihara Subramanian ...PetitionerVs 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai – 2, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 2(1), Chennai – 600 034. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for issuance of Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, to call for the records of the 1[st] respondent inC.No.263/05/PCIT-2/2014-2015 for the assessment year 2007-2008and quash the impugned order dated 26.03.2015 passed underSection 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and direct the 1[st]respondent to drop the revision proceedings against thepetitioner. For Petitioner :Mr.P.S.Raman ,Senior Counsel for Mr.Subbaraya AiyarFor Respondents:Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan Standing Counsel This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner toquash the order dated 26.03.2015 passed under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') bythe first respondent vide C.No.263/05/PCIT-2/2014-15 for theAssessment Year 2007-2008 and to direct the first respondent todrop the revision proceedings against the petitioner. 2.In the order impugned herein, the first respondent haspointed out the following omissions in the assessment orderdated 30.03.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section143(3) r/w Section 263: (i)After assessing the income for the year, brought forwardlosses have been allowed to be set off against the income soassessed under both the normal computation and book profits u/s115 JB. The set off against book profits is erroneous andexcessive. (ii)During the year, a sum of Rs.59.02 crores beingexpenditure towards FCCB/premium on debentures was incurred andthis was allowed in the assessment order. Out of this, Rs.33.53crores represents premium on debentures, which ought to havebeen restricted to the actual amount of debentures redeemedduring the year. (iii)From the records, it is observed that subsequent tothe completion of assessment order u/s 143(3) r/w section 263,information was received that the assessee company madeinvestments in M/s.Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd during theprevious year of 1,90,839 shares amounting to Rs.4,99,99,818/-.After issuing show cause notice and calling upon the objectionsfrom the petitioner and upon examining the materials availableon record, the first respondent has observed that the assessmentorder dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer waserroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue andaccordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to modify theassessment and pass necessary orders in accordance with law,after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 3.Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed counteraffidavit, wherein, it is inter alia stated that the orderimpugned herein has been passed after duly and properlyconsidering all the submissions made by the petitioner and thepetitioner has an effective and efficacious statutory appellateremedy against the impugned order and therefore, the writpetition is liable to be dismissed. 4.Though the petitioner assailed the order impugned hereinraising very many grounds, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would suffice, if the petitioner is granted liberty to fileappeal as against the order impugned herein, before theappellate authority. 5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents has no serious objection in granting such relief tothe petitioner. 4.Though the petitioner assailed the order impugned hereinraising very many grounds, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would suffice, if the petitioner is granted liberty to fileappeal as against the order impugned herein, before theappellate authority. 5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents has no serious objection in granting such relief tothe petitioner. 6.Having regard to the submission now made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, which has not been seriously opposedon the side of the respondents, the petitioner is grantedliberty to file appeal before the Appellate Authority within aperiod of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. On such filing, the Appellate Authority shall entertainthe same, without raising any objection relating to limitationand proceed further and pass appropriate orders, on merits andin accordance with law, after affording due opportunity ofpersonal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeksthereafter. 7.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions areclosed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mp To 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai – 2, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 2, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 2(1), Chennai – 600 034. +1cc to Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, Sr.No.23286 W.P.No. 21661 of 2015 MP(CO)GS(06/08/2020)