Tca/496/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Metropolitan Transport

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.08.2021 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP T.C.A.No.496 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai...Appellant M/s.Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,PAN: ,No.1, Pallavan House,Annasalai, Chennai-600 002... Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 25.09.2012 made in I.T.A.No.625/Mds/2012on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench,Chennai for the assessment year 2004-05.This Appeal filedagainst order of the Income Tax Appeals Tribunal Madras “c”Bench in ITA No.625/Mds/2012 dated 25.09.2012 in assessment year2004-2005 against the Commissiner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI,Chennai – 600 034 in ITA No.199/10-11 dated 20.12.2011 PANNo.AAACP1935C for the assessment year 2004-2005 against theIncome Tax Officer (OSD) company Circle (IV)(2) chennai-34 inPAN No.ME-12/AAACP1935C for assessment year 2004-2005. JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the appellant/Revenue, filed under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as“the Act”) is directed against the order dated 25.09.2012, madein I.T.A.No.625/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2004-05. 2.The appeal was admitted on 19.08.2013, on the followingsubstantial question of law:-“Whether under the facts and circumstances of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the undistributed amount ofRs.7.29 crores, received by the assessee in theyear 1999 towards the terminal benefits of theemployees, cannot be treated as trading receiptduring the year in appeal?” 3.Heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 4.The respondent/assessee is the Metropolitan TransportCorporation (Chennai) Ltd., a wholly owned Tamil Nadu StateGovernment undertaking. The assessment for the year underconsideration 2004-05 was completed on 25.10.2007 under Section143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officerpointed out that the Government of Tamil Nadu had provided a sumof Rs.20.50 Crores for payment of interest on terminal benefitsto be kept under a separate account and not to be utilized forany other purpose, but the assessee stated to have used theundisbursed balance of Rs.7.29 Crores for working capitalrequirements. This the Assessing Officer held it to be atrading receipt and added it back to the return of income. Thecorrectness of this was challenged by the assessee before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai (for brevity,“the CIT(A)”). The CIT(A), by order dated 20.12.2011, affirmedthe view taken by the Assessing Officer, however did not recordany independent findings. Aggrieved by the same, the assesseewas before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order,has allowed the appeal. The Tribunal took note of the factualposition, which was placed before it to establish that theremaining amount of Rs.7.29 Crores, which was left in the handsof the assessee, was used to be adjusted against the studentsconcession subsidy due to the assessee from the Government ofTamil Nadu in the subsequent years. The assessee was able toestablish the said fact by producing a Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.44 dated 24.03.2009. Taking note of the saidGovernment Order, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowedby the Tribunal. 5.It is no doubt true that the Government Order dated24.03.2009 was not placed before the CIT(A), when it heard theappeal and passed the order dated 20.12.2011, but there can beno denying the fact that such an order was passed. Thegenuinity of the stand taken by the assessee was never in doubtbefore the Tribunal. 6.Thus, we are of the view that considering the facts andcircumstances of the case as placed before the Tribunal, theassessee was granted relief and we find no question of law, much https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ less substantial question of law arising for consideration inthis appeal.Accordingly, the tax case appeal stands dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC)//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abrTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Income Tax Officer (OSD) Company Circle IV(2) Chennai – 600 034. 4. The Metropolitan Transport, Corporation (Chennai) No.1, Pallavan Salai, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002. Copy To The Section Officer,VR Section High Court, Madras – 104. +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Iyer, Advocate, S.R.No.37922 T.C.A.No.496 of 2013VSNII(CO)CT(25/08/2021)