Madras High Court
M/S.Leo Fasteners vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 August, 2021
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
M/s.Leo Fasteners,
Rep., by its Partner,
A-27A, Industrial Estate,
Thattanchavady,
Pondicherry-9.
PAN – AABFL0652J .. Appellant in both Appeals
-vs-
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle I, Pondicherry. .. Respondent in both Appeals
Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 29.05.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1223/Mds/2014 and
I.T.A.No.3097/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07
respectively.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
For Appellant : Ms.Vardini Karthik
(In both Appeals)
For Respondent : J.Narayanasamy,
(In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel
******
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
These appeals, by the appellant/assessee, filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 are directed against the order dated 29.05.2015
made in I.T.A.No.1223/Mds/2014 and I.T.A.No.3097/Mds/2014 on the file
of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the
assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively.
2.C.M.A.No.1013 of 2015 has been admitted on 17.11.2015, on the
following substantial questions of law:-
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-
assessment is valid in law on a perverse finding of fact
that the details came into light as a result of search, when
there was no such search in the case of the appellant?
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-
opening was valid in law when the re-assessment order
itself was framed only on the figures declared by the
appellant in its computation of income filed along with
the return of income, when the same is a mere change of
opinion?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the interest
income from the deduction claimed under Section 80IB,
when the income earned by the appellant was from the
margin money deposits which were inextricably linked to
the business of the appellant? and
4.Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the
exclusion of the gross interest income from the
computation of deduction under Section 80IB by way of
re-assessment, when the assessing officer had accepted
the inclusion of net interest in the regular assessment?”
3.C.M.A.No.1014 of 2015 has been filed raising the following
substantial questions of law:-
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
assessment beyond four years is valid in law on a
perverse finding of fact that the details came into light as
a result of search, when there was no such search in the
case of the appellant?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-
opening beyond four years was valid in law when the re-
assessment order itself was framed only on the figures
declared by the appellant in its computation of income
filed along with the return of income, when there is no
allegation of suppression of facts?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the interest
income from the deduction claimed under Section 80IB,
when the income earned by the appellant was from the
margin money deposits which were inextricably linked to
the business of the appellant? and
4.Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the
exclusion of the gross interest income from the
computation of deduction under Section 80IB by way of
re-assessment, when the assessing officer had accepted
the inclusion of net interest in the regular assessment?”
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
4.Heard Ms.Vardini Karthik, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee has circulated a letter
dated 03.08.2021, stating that the appeals have become infructuous, as the
Tribunal in the rectification petitions filed by the assessee, has allowed the
appeals in favour of the assessee for the assessment years under
consideration.
6.The submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is
placed on record and the tax case appeals are dismissed as infructuous. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
03.08.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
abr
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.
(abr)
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai.
T.C.A.Nos.1013 & 1014 of 2015
03.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
