Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S.sakthi Sugers Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMand THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.386 of 2018and C.M.P.No.8505 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax I,No.63, Race Course Road,Coimbatore. ... Appellant/Appellant -vs- M/s.Sakthi Sugers Ltd.,180, Course Road,Coimbatore-641 018. PAN : AAD CS 0651 B. ... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai dated 23.06.2017 in ITANo.1107/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. against theorder of the commissioner of Income (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore,dated 14/01/16 made in Appeal No. 276/13-14 and against theorder of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(1), Coimbatore, dated 30/03/2013 made in PA.GIR.No. AADCS0651Bfor Assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant:Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,Senior Standing Counsel:assisted by M/s.K.G.Usha Rani,Junior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT[Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by M/s.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue; and Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.This tax case appeal, by the Revenue, is directedagainst the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal'C' Bench, Chennai dated 23.06.2017, in ITA No.1107/Mds/2016 forthe assessment year 2010-11. 3.The above appeal has been filed raising the followingtwo substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is rightin allowing the rental income of the assessee as“business income” instead of “Income from houseproperty” when the principal object of theassessee company is not letting out of properties? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is rightin allowing the rental income of the assessee as“business income” ignoring Apex Court judgment inthe case of Keyaram Hotels (2015) 63 taxmann.com301?” 4.It is not disputed before us that the issue raised inthis appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court inthe case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1,Coimbatore vs. M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd. [Tax Case Appal No.621 of2017; Dated 13.12.2017], where identical questions wereconsidered and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.The judgment dated 13.12.2017, reads as follows:- “Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counselaccepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Heardboth. 2. This appeal has been filed by theRevenue raising the following substantialquestions of law :"i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is rightin allowing the rental income of the assessee as'business income' instead of 'income from houseproperty' when the principal object of theassessee company is not letting out ofproperties ? and ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is rightin allowing the rental income of the assessee as'business income' ignoring the Apex Court'sjudgment in the case of Keyaram Hotels [(2015 63Taxmann.com 301] ?" 3. The appeal filed by the Revenue wasdismissed by the Tribunal by following the earlierorder of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.614/Mds/2012dated 30.1.2015 in the assessee's own case for theassessment year 2008-09. 4. When this matter came up for hearing on ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is rightin allowing the rental income of the assessee as'business income' ignoring the Apex Court'sjudgment in the case of Keyaram Hotels [(2015 63Taxmann.com 301] ?" 3. The appeal filed by the Revenue wasdismissed by the Tribunal by following the earlierorder of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.614/Mds/2012dated 30.1.2015 in the assessee's own case for theassessment year 2008-09. 4. When this matter came up for hearing on 08.12.2017, we posed a question to the learnedSenior Standing Counsel for the Revenue as towhether the Department accepted the earlierdecision of the Tribunal in the assessee's owncase for the assessment year 2008-09. The learnedSenior Standing Counsel sought for an adjournmentto verify the facts. Today, when the case is takenup for hearing, it is reported that the Departmentaccepted the earlier order of the Tribunal in theassessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09 and that no appeal has been filed against thatorder. Thus, we find that the substantialquestions of law have to be answered in favour ofthe assessee and against the Revenue. 5. In the light of the earlier decision ofthe Tribunal dated 30.1.2015 in the assessee's owncase for the assessment year 2008-09, which hasattained finality, the above tax case appeal isdismissed. No costs.” 5.Following the above decision, the order of the Tribunal,dated 23.06.2017, is confirmed and the appeal filed by theRevenue stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS VII)//True copy//Sub Assistant Registrar abr To1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax I, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore. CA(CO)GN(21/08/2018)