Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Saber Office & School on 10 August, 2021
TCA.No.845 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.08.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Tax Case Appeal No.845 of 2015
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Saber Office & School
Products Pvt. Ltd.,
No.7 A, 2nd Main Road,
IIT Colony, Narayanpuram,
Pallikaranai, Chennai – 600 100. ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 08.04.2015 made in ITA.No.512/Mds/2014 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year
2005-2006.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayansasamy
For Respondent : Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.845 of 2015
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 ['the Act' for brevity] is directed against the order dated
08.04.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter
referred to as “the Tribunal”], 'D' Bench in I.T.A.No.512/Mds/2014 for the
assessment year 2005-2006.
2.The appeal was admitted on 29.09.2015 on the following
substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunalw as right in holding that the
reassessment proceeding is bad in law even though the
assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) was passed
merely accepting the return of the assessee without
dealing with the issue of addition made in the re-
assessment proceedings?”
3.We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned senior standing counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.845 of 2015
appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.Quadir Hoseyn, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/assessee.
4.The issue involved in this appeal is whether the reopening of
assessment for the year under consideration AY 2005-2006 which was done
after a period of four years was valid or not. The Commissioner of Income
Tax [Appeals][CIT(A)] upheld the validity of the reopening on the ground
that in the original assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act, the
Assessing Officer has not formed any opinion on the issue which was the
reason for reopening, namely, that the deferred revenue expenditure can be
claimed only under Section 35 and Section 35DDA of the Act. The order
passed by the CIT(A) was challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal
and before the Tribunal, the assessee was able to establish that various
details were called for by the Assessing Officer before completing the
assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and in this regard, referred to a
communication sent by the Assessing Officer dated 20.08.2007. Further,
the issue which was cited as a reason for reopening is query No.28 in the
query raised by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 20.08.2007. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.845 of 2015
assessee has explained in detail before the Assessing Officer the nature of
the deferred revenue expenditure as being advertisement expenditure for
promotion of its brand and it has chosen to right off such expenditure.
Further the assessee has brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that
in the Notes on Accounts in para 1(a) all the relevant details were
mentioned which was perused by the Assessing Officer and having been
satisfied the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act.
Furthermore, the assessee has disclosed in its Profit and Loss account
Schedule XII, Balance Sheet of Schedule VII and Notes on Accounts para
1(a) to the final accounts. Furthermore, the auditor's report also mentions
about the same. Thus the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee
had made full and true disclosure of all relevant materials at the time of
assessment and to reopen the assessment on the ground that the Assessing
Officer did not consider various points raised by the assessee has been
found to be factually incorrect. Thus, we find that there is no error in the
approach of the Tribunal nor the ultimate relief granted to the assessee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.845 of 2015
5.In the result, the tax case appeal is dismissed and the substantial
question of law is answered against the revenue. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.S.K,J.)
10.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
cse
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
'D' Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.845 of 2015
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J.
cse
TCA.No.845 of 2015
10.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
