M/S.keesara Plastics Pvt Ltd.,L-5, Sidco Industrial Estate,Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118 v. The Assistant/Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax,Company Circle - Ii(4),Chennai - 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.03.2021 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal Nos.164 to 166 of 2014 M/s.Keesara Plastics Pvt Ltd.,L-5, SIDCO Industrial Estate,Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118. ..Appellant in all appeals Vs The Assistant/Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax,Company Circle - II(4),Chennai - 4. ..Respondent in all appeals COMMON PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the common order dated 17.07.2013 made inITA.Nos.1326/Mds/2012, 1327/Mds/2012 and 917/Mds/2013 for theassessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench,Chennai. Appeal against the order dated 18/01/2013, 22/03/2012 and16/03/2012 respectively made in ITA.No.654/2011-12/A.III,ITA.No.423/10-11/A.III and ITA.No.217/09-10/A.III respectivelyon the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III,Chennai and As Appeal against the order dated 16/12/2011, 30/12/2010and 27/11/2009 respectively made in PAN./GIR.No. ; onthe file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CompanyCircle -II(4), Chennai -34 for the Assessment year 2009-10,2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively.For Appellant:Mr.P.J.RishikeshFor Respondent:Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) These appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity)challenging the common order dated 17.07.2013 made inITA.Nos.1326/Mds/2012, 1327/Mds/2012 and 917/Mds/2013 for theassessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench,Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity). 2. The appeals were admitted on 27.03.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: "a) Whether, in facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right indenying deduction to the assessee underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961,especially when the Tribunal has itselfgiven a positive finding that the assesseeis carrying out manufacturing activity,which is sine quo non for claiming exemptionunder Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act,1961?b) Whether, in facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right inmaking an enquiry as to whether substantialmanufacturing activity is being carried onat Chennai unit or Dehradun unit, which isnot a condition precedent under Section 80ICof the Income Tax Act, 1961? c) Whether, in facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal has jurisdictionto deny exemption under Section 80IC on theground that only small quantity of goods aremanufactured at Dehradun? d) Whether, in facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in goinginto the accounts of the assessee's unitsand make a roving enquiry especially whenSection 80IC does not contemplate so? e) Whether, in facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right inholding that the Assessee has adoptedcolorable devise to claim exemption underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. We have heard Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee submitsthat the assessee already filed the declaration/undertakingunder the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and awaiting orders to bepassed in Form No.3. e) Whether, in facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right inholding that the Assessee has adoptedcolorable devise to claim exemption underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. We have heard Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee submitsthat the assessee already filed the declaration/undertakingunder the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and awaiting orders to bepassed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the assessee isgiven liberty to restore these appeals in the event the ultimatedecision taken on the declaration filed by the assessees underSection 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessees. Ifsuch a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayerwithout insisting upon any application to be filed forcondonation of delay in restoration of the appeals and on suchrequest made by the assessees by filing a miscellaneous petitionfor restoration, the Registry shall place such petition beforethe appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeals stand disposed of with theaforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questionsof law framed are left open. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Assistant/Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Company Circle - II(4), Chennai - 4. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-III, Chennai. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle -II(4), Chennai -34. +3cc to Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, Advocate SR.NO..20875 AKM/09.04.21/ 3P- 8C/ TCA.Nos.164 to 166 of 201431.03.2021