Madras High Court
M/S.Leo Fasteners Rep.By vs The Assistant Commissioner Of on 18 August, 2021
TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015
& 172 of 2017
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 18.8.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Tax Case Appeal Nos.1015 of 2015 & 172 of 2017 &
MP.No.1 of 2015
M/s.Leo Fasteners rep.by
its partner ...Appellant
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry ...Respondent
APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the orders respectively dated 29.5.2015 and 30.9.2016 made
in ITA.No.3098/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08.
For Appellant: Mrs.G.Vardini Karthik
For Respondent: Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSC
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J)
We have heard Mrs.G.Vardini Karthik, learned counsel appearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015
& 172 of 2017
for the appellant and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. These appeals are directed against the orders respectively
dated 29.5.2015 and 30.9.2016 made in ITA.No.3098/Mds/2014 on
the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the
assessment year 2007-08.
3. The above appeals are filed by the assessee by raising the
following substantial questions of law :
“TCA.No.1015 of 2015 :
i. Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the reassessment is valid
in law on a perverse finding of fact that the
details came to light as a result of search,
when there was no such search in the case of
the appellant?
ii. Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the reopening was valid in
law when the reassessment order itself was
framed only on the figures declared by the
appellant in its computation of income filed
along with the return of income already
considered during regular assessment
amounting to a mere change of opinion?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015
& 172 of 2017
iii. Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in excluding the entire 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
iv. 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 reassessment
when the Assessing Officer had accepted the
inclusion of net interest in the regular
assessment? And
TCA.No.172 of 2017 :
1. Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the reopening was valid in
law when the reassessment amounted to mere
change of opinion?
2. Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in upholding the reassessment when it
was framed only on the figures declared by the
appellant in its computation of income filed
along with return of income, already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015
& 172 of 2017
considered during regular assessment?
iii. Whether, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in excluding the entire 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
iv. Whether the Tribunal was right in
upholding the exclusion of the gross interest
from the deduction under Section 80IB when
the appellant had included only net interest in
the computation?”
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee
has given a letter dated 17.8.2021 stating that the appeals have
become infructuous.
5. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as follows :
“It is submitted that the TCA.No.172 of
2017 was filed in January 2017 challenging the
demand raised on account of reassessment
proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court, in a
batch of tax case appeals filed in the
assessee's own case, vide order dated
10.7.2017, has allowed the appeals in favour
of the appellant and has given complete relief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015
& 172 of 2017
of the deduction claimed under Section 80IB.
It is further stated that this Hon'ble High Court
in TCA.No.1220 of 2010 on 10.7.2017 and the
same has been reported in 398 ITR 462
(Mad.). Since the relief sought for on merits
have been fully granted by this Hon'ble Court,
the appeals filed by the appellant challenging
the reassessment proceedings in TCA.Nos.
1015 of 2015 and 172 of 2017 have become
infructuous.”
6. Recording the above communication, the above appeals are
dismissed as infructuous. The substantial questions of law raised are
left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is also dismissed.
18.8.2021
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Pondicherry
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench.
RS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015
& 172 of 2017
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J
RS
TCA.Nos.1015 of 2015
and 172 of 2017
18.8.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
