The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli – 607 801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.Vs. M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,Neyveli – 607 801. ...Appellant ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, dated 26.06.2015 passed inI.T.A.No.374/Mds/2004. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai 34, made in ITA No.67/2003-04 dated 28/11/2003, Assessment year 2001-02. Appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Company Circle IV(4), Chennai 34 made in PANAAACN1121C/NE-65 dated 28/03/2003, Assessment year 2001-02 Appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Company Circle IV(4), Chennai 34 made in PANAAACN1121C/NE-65 dated 19/03/2002, Assessment year 2001-02 For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mrs.G.Janane for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.374/Mds/2004 for the assessment year 2001-02. The above appeal has been admitted on 08.03.2016 on thefollowing Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding that therevamping the urea plant is allowable expenditure ascurrent repairs, even though the said expenditure wasincurred after the life span of the plant andmachinery, which does not amount to preservation of analready existing machinery? 2.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that theexpenditure incurred in revamping the urea plant isallowable as revenue expenditure, especially when theassessee had capitalized the same in its books ofaccount? 3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified in relying onthe amendment to Section 80IA made by Finance Act,1999, while allowing 100% deduction, even though theassessee had commenced its operation in the year 1994-95, when the position of law was different? and 4.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad byapplying the amended provisions of law by extendingthe benefit retrospectively, which goes against theprinciple of strict interpretation of machineryprovisions?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mrs.G.Janane forM/s.LakshmiKumaran,learnedcounselfortherespondent/assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of Indiaenacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of theParliament received the assent of the President on 17[th] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submittedthat the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andthat the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on 09.03.2021. 5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submittedthat the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andthat the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on 09.03.2021. 5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) V, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai 34 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV(4), 121, M.G.Road, Chennai 34. +1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar,Advocate Sr.No.23483+3 cc to Mr.Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, Sr.No.23764 Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016 SR II(CO)KKV/21/06/2021