M/S.leo Fasteners Rep.byits v. The Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.8.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUPTAX CASE APPEAL NOS.1015 OF 2015 & 172 OF 2017 & MP.NO.1 OF 2015 M/s.Leo Fasteners rep.byits partner ...Appellant/ Appellant Vs The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry...Respondent/ Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the orders respectively dated 29.5.2015 and 30.9.2016made in ITA.No.3098/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year2007-08. TCA 1015 of 2015: Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Puducherry (I/C) in ITA 750/13-14 dated 27.11.2014 andagainst the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCircle (I) Pondicherry in P.A.No./G.I.No.AABFLO652J/L-303, dated28.03.2013 Asst Year 2007-2008. TCA 172 of 2017: Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(Puducherry (I/C)) in ITA 750/13-14 dated 27.11.2014 andagainst the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCircle (I) Pondicherry in AABFLO652J/L-303, dated 28.03.2013Asst Year 2007-2008. For Appellant: Mrs.G.Vardini KarthikFor Respondent: Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J) We have heard Mrs.G.Vardini Karthik, learned counselappearing for the appellant and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. These appeals are directed against the ordersrespectively dated 29.5.2015 and 30.9.2016 made inITA.No.3098/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08. 3. The above appeals are filed by the assessee by raisingthe following substantial questions of law : “TCA.No.1015 of 2015 : i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the reassessment isvalid in law on a perverse finding of factthat the details came to light as a resultof search, when there was no such search inthe case of the appellant? ii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the reopening wasvalid in law when the reassessment orderitself was framed only on the figuresdeclared by the appellant in its computationof income filed along with the return ofincome already considered during regularassessment amounting to a mere change ofopinion? iii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in excluding the entire interestincome from the deduction claimed underSection 80IB, when the income earned by theappellant was from the margin moneydeposits, which were inextricably linked tothe business of the appellant? And iv. Whether the Tribunal was right inupholding the exclusion of the grossinterest income from the computation ofdeduction under Section 80IB by way ofreassessment when the Assessing Officer hadaccepted the inclusion of net interest inthe regular assessment? And TCA.No.172 of 2017 : 1. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the reopening wasvalid in law when the reassessment amountedto mere change of opinion? 2. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in upholding the reassessment when itwas framed only on the figures declared bythe appellant in its computation of incomefiled along with return of income, alreadyconsidered during regular assessment? iv. Whether the Tribunal was right inupholding the exclusion of the grossinterest income from the computation ofdeduction under Section 80IB by way ofreassessment when the Assessing Officer hadaccepted the inclusion of net interest inthe regular assessment? And TCA.No.172 of 2017 : 1. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the reopening wasvalid in law when the reassessment amountedto mere change of opinion? 2. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in upholding the reassessment when itwas framed only on the figures declared bythe appellant in its computation of incomefiled along with return of income, alreadyconsidered during regular assessment? iii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in excluding the entire interestincome from the deduction claimed underSection 80IB when the income earned by theappellant was from the margin moneydeposits, which were inextricably linked tothe business of the appellant ? And iv. Whether the Tribunal was right inupholding the exclusion of the grossinterest from the deduction under Section80IB when the appellant had included onlynet interest in the computation?” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant –assessee has given a letter dated 17.8.2021 stating that theappeals have become infructuous. 5. The relevant portion of the said letter reads asfollows :“It is submitted that the TCA.No.172 of2017 was filed in January 2017 challengingthe demand raised on account of reassessmentproceedings. The Hon'ble High Court, in abatch of tax case appeals filed in theassessee's own case, vide order dated10.7.2017, has allowed the appeals in favourof the appellant and has given completerelief of the deduction claimed underSection 80IB. It is further stated that thisHon'ble High Court in TCA.No.1220 of 2010 on10.7.2017 and the same has been reported in398 ITR 462 (Mad.). Since the relief soughtfor on merits have been fully granted bythis Hon'ble Court, the appeals filed by theappellant challenging the reassessmentproceedings in TCA.Nos. 1015 of 2015 and 172of 2017 have become infructuous.” 6. Recording the above communication, the above appeals aredismissed as infructuous. The substantial questions of lawraised are left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPis also dismissed. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar RS To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal, Puducherry (I/C) (Appeal, Puducherry (I/C) +2ccs to M/S.J.Sreevidya, Advocate, SR.No.41572,41571+1cc to M/S.Narayanasamy, Advocate, SR.No.41566 TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015and 172 of 2017 PVS(CO)PM(03/09/2021)