Income Tax Case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 31.01.2020 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGANT.C.A.No.823 of 2018 State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd.,No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,Egmore, Chennai 600 008. PAN: AAACS 4643J... Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Corporate Circle – 6(2),No.121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai 600 034.... RespondentPRAYER : Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”Bench,Chennaidated19.07.2018passedinI.T.A.No.1312/CHNY/2018, against the order of the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-6 dated 09.03.2018 inC.No.6119/PCIT-6/2017-18 and against the order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 6(2) Chennai-34,dt-30/12/2016 in PAN No. . For Appellant :Mr.G.Baskar For Respondent :Mr.J.Narayanasamy Senior standing counsel J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J) The Appellant company has been engaged with providing andmaintaining of industrial complexes/parks with basicinfrastructure like roads, street lights etc., and theappellant has declared total income of Rs.1,43,09,96,100/- forthe Assessment years 2014-15. The appellant's case wasselected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) dated 04.09.2014had been issued and assessment was completed on 30.12.2016 by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ making additions. The said assessment order was set asidewith a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo theassessment on 09.03.2018 by the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-6. The same was challenged before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal by the Assessee/Appellant, where theTribunal dismissed the Appeal on 19.07.2018. The order ofthe Appellate Tribunal is challenged before this Court. 2.The Appeal has been admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law on 23.11.2018: (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was perverse in not considering thesubmissions made and the materials placed before itin the proper perspective in respect of jurisdictionof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax inexercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, but erroneously observing thatthe assessee had not filed the relevant documents tocome to an exact conclusion in respect of the claimof deduction under Section 80IA of the Act?(ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in law in not holding that the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction torevise the order of the Assessing Officer, which isin violation of the 'doctrine of merger' and hadexceeded in his jurisdiction in violation of Sub-Clause (c) under Explanation 1 to Section 263(1) ofthe Act in so far as the issue had already been thesubject matter of appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)? and (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in law in holding that the Assessing Officerhad erroneously allowed excess deduction underSection 80IA of the Act? 3.Heard Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant and Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned seniorstanding counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in law in holding that the Assessing Officerhad erroneously allowed excess deduction underSection 80IA of the Act? 3.Heard Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant and Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned seniorstanding counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4.It is evident from the records that though theappellant has raised the issue of jurisdiction of theCommissioner, under Section 263 to initiate suo motu revisionespecially when an appeal against Assessment Order has beenfiled and heard and order has been passed by the AppellateCommissioner and though the Tribunal went into the merits ofthe case, it has not decided about the jurisdiction. Thejurisdiction point is an important point to decide the matterand therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide about thejurisdiction. The above substantial questions of law areanswered accordingly. 5.With the above direction, the Appeal is allowed. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sai To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 6(2), No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-6. +1cc to M/s.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR.8697+1cc to M/s.G.Baskar, Advocate SR.7861T.C.A.No.823 of 2018BP(CO)CB(10/11/2020)