Tca/977/2019 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA T.C.A.No.977 of 2019 Commissioner of Income-tax,Coimbatore... Appellant -vs- The Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd.,Palani Road,Venkatesa Mills Post,Coimbatore-642 128... Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 03.04.2002 made in I.T.A.Nos.713 to715/Mds/2001 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate TribunalChennai Bench 'B' for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 &1994-95 respectively. Against the commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) Coimbatore and made in dated 19.03.2001 for theassessment year 1992-93, 1993-94,1994-95 respectively, againstthe joint Commissioner of Income tax special Range-I, coimbatoreand made in PAN No.47-021- CV 1108 dated 22.03.1999 for theassessment year 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 respectively. For Appellant:Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,Senior Standing Counselassisted by Ms.K.G.UsharaniJunior Standing Counsel For Respondent :No appearance (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax, 1961, is directed against the order dated03.04.2002, made in I.T.A.Nos.713 to 715/Mds/2001 passed by theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench 'B' for theassessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 & 1994-95 respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appeal was admitted on 16.12.2019, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Tribunal is justified inallowing the replacement cost of machinery asrevenueexpenditureandcancellingthereassessments, ignoring the fact that the lawwas amended with effect from 01.04.1989 withregard to Section 147 governed the assessmentyears under consideration?” 3.We have elaborately heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learnedSenior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learnedJunior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. 4.Though the respondent/assessee has been served and theirname is printed in the cause list, none appears for the assessee. 5.After hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel for theRevenue and carefully perusing the materials placed on record,we find that the order passed by the Tribunal is entirely on thefacts, which were placed before the it and after taking note ofthe factual position, the Tribunal concluded that the AssessingOfficer was not justified in treating the replacement ofmachinery as capital in nature and disqualifying the claim ofthe assessee. Since the matter has been decided solely on thefactual consideration and the decisions of the Tribunal in theassessee's own case for the earlier assessment years, the thinline of difference which is sought to be pointed out in thisappeal, cannot be regarded as a substantial question of law, asthe decision taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own casefor the earlier assessment years was purely on facts.Therefore, we find that there is no substantial question of lawarising for consideration in this appeal. 6.Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed, as there is nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration. No costs. Assistant Registrar(CS III) Sub Assistant Registrar abr To 1)The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench 'B', Chennai. 2)The Commissioner of Income – Tax (Appeals) Coimbatore. 3)The Joint Commissioner of Income – Tax Special Range-I, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. T.C.A.No.977 of 2019 AAB(CO)RG.21.04.2021(3P/4C)