Pesco Beam Environmental Solutions Private Ltd, 136 Thodugudu Village, Sriperumbudhur 602 105 v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Pesco Beam Environmental Solutions Private Ltd,136 Thodugudu Village, Sriperumbudhur 602 105. .. Appellant/AppellantVersus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai. .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer:- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated 21.05.2020 made inI.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2017 relating to the Asst Year 2012-13. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, M.G.Road, Chennai 34, dated 31/07/2017 made inITA.No. 102/16-17/A-3 against the order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5 (2), M.G.Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 dated 27/02/2016 made in PAN.No. . For Appellant: Mr.A.S.SriramanFor Respondent: Mr.R.Hemalatha, Standing Counsel [Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] This appeal by the assessee under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) is directed againstthe order dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, B Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2017 for theassessment year 2012-13. The appeal is admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law: 1. Whether the appeal filed before the FirstAppellate Authority is maintainable in the light ofthe corrected / revised computation of taxable totalincome filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with a pleading to admit the fresh claim and forrestoring the first appeal for deciding the issues onmerits? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 294(4) ofthe Act is applicable even after establishing themistake in the original return of income filed infurnishing the revised computation of taxable totalincome before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal as afresh/new claim to press for the right of appeal? 3.Whether the proceedings of the second appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should bereckoned as continuation of assessment proceedingsespecially in the context of entertaining the revisedcomputation of taxable total income to consider thetax imposable on the correct income? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correctin rejecting the additional/fresh claim made beforethem for entertaining the first appeal for want ofevidences/details forsupportingthe revisedcomputation of taxable total income filed before themdespite such details / evidences were part of theirrecord in the form of paper Book comprised of 271pages, thereby establishing perversity in recordingthe findings of facts? 2. We have elaborately heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant / assessee andMs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel who acceptsnotice for the respondent. 3. The assessment for the year under consideration namelyAssessment Year 2012-13 was completed under Section 143 (3) readwith Section 92 (C) (A) of the Act by order dated 27.02.2016.Against certain addition was made, the assessee being aggrieved,filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai ('the CIT (A)' for brevity). The appeal was notconsidered on merits and was dismissed by the CIT (A) by orderdated 31.07.2017 on the ground that the assessee has not paidthe self assessment tax which the assessee had admitted beforethe appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, the assesseepreferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The following fourgrounds were raised before the Tribunal: Grounds of Appeal 1. For that the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, factsand circumstances of the case to the extentprejudicial to the interest of the appellant and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is opposed to the principles of equity, naturaljustice and fair play. Grounds of Appeal 1. For that the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, factsand circumstances of the case to the extentprejudicial to the interest of the appellant and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is opposed to the principles of equity, naturaljustice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order ofthe Assessing officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as notmaintainable.4. For that considering the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) ought to have granted time tothe assessee to pay the self-assessment tax. 4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the assesseeraised additional grounds contending that they had inadvertentlyoffered an income of Rs.82.37 Crores relating to inbuilt Revenuewhich was neither received nor accrued. The Tribunal uponconsidering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee at thefirst instance as well as additional grounds, rejected the sameby holding that the self assessment tax was admittedly not paidand there is no satisfactory evidence to substantiate theassessee's plea that the assessee has wrongly computed theincome. Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee is before us byway of this appeal. 5. We have referred to the grounds of appeal raisedbefore the Tribunal at the first instance and we find thatchallenge to the order passed by the CIT (A) was on the groundthat the CIT (A) ought to have granted time to the assessee topay the self assessment tax. When the appeal was heard,additional grounds were raised which we find to be entirelyfactual. On the first issue as to whether the CIT (A) ought to havegranted time to the assessee to pay the self assessment tax, isconcerned, if we look at Sub Section 4 of Section 249 of theAct, it is made clear that unless and until, the assessee haspaid the income tax due on the income returned by him, no appealunder Chapter XX will be admitted. The Statute does not neithergive any discretion to the appellate authority to entertain anappeal nor extend the time for paying the self assessment tax,except in respect of cases falling under Clause b of Section 249(4) in terms of proviso under the said Section. 6. Though such a ground raised in the appeal memorandumfiled before the Tribunal, the assessee appears to have beenmore interested in canvassing the additional grounds with regardto offering a sum of Rs.82.37 Crores relating to inbuilt revenuewhich according to the assessee was an inadvertent income. Inour considered view, the Tribunal has rightly held that there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ no satisfactory evidence placed before it to substantiate theassessee's plea that they wrongly computed the admitted income.Thus in the light of the above discussion, we find there is noSubstantial Questions of Law much less Substantial Questions ofLaw arises for consideration in this Appeal. The Tax Case Appealfails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. 7.Afterwe havepronouncedthejudgment,Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for assessee submitted that theassessee may be permitted to file a revision under Section 264of the Act in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Act.We have decided the correctness of the order passed by theTribunal and held that no substantial questions of law arisesfor consideration. If the Statute provides for any remedy to theassessee, it is well open to the assessee to invoke suchremedies in accordance with law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar skTo 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, No.121, M.G.Road, Chennai – 34. No.121, M.G.Road, Chennai – 34. 7.Afterwe havepronouncedthejudgment,Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for assessee submitted that theassessee may be permitted to file a revision under Section 264of the Act in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Act.We have decided the correctness of the order passed by theTribunal and held that no substantial questions of law arisesfor consideration. If the Statute provides for any remedy to theassessee, it is well open to the assessee to invoke suchremedies in accordance with law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar skTo 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, No.121, M.G.Road, Chennai – 34. No.121, M.G.Road, Chennai – 34. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate circle 5 (2), M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -34. +1cc to Mr.R.Hemalatha, Advocate, S.R.No. 27184T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 NRL(CO)GN(23/10/2020)