Madras High Court
M/S. Sree Ayyanar Spinning & vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 17 December, 2021
TCA No. 583 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A. No. 583 of 2021
M/s. Sree Ayyanar Spinning &
Weaving Mills Ltd.
Mallanginar 626 109. .. Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Madurai. .. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A'
Bench, Chennai dated 21.06.2003 passed in ITA No.719/Mds/1994 for the
Assessment Year 1989-90.
For Appellant : Mr. S.Sridhar
For Respondent : Mrs. V.Pushpa
Junior Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal is filed by the appellant-assessee, assailing the
order dated 21.06.2003 passed in ITA No.719/Mds/1994 by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Chennai relating to the Assessment Year
1989-90.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 583 of 2021
2. This Appeal is filed by the Appellate-Assessee by raising the
following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case the Tribunal was right in sustaining the order of
the Lower authorities in reworking the book profits under
Section 115J of the Income Tax Act for the relevant
Assessment year in ignoring/excluding the depreciation
charged to the profit and loss account consequent to the
permissible change in the method of calculating such
depreciation with a view to impose tax on the same?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case the Tribunal was right in their action in
sustaining the said reworking of the computation as
envisaged under Section 115J of the Act by
removing/excluding the depreciation debited in the Profit
and Loss account which represented the difference arose on
account of change in method of providing the said
depreciation in the books of account, as permitted and
provided in Part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies
Act, 1956?”
3. When this appeal is taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the appellant/assessee fairly submitted that the relief sought in this
appeal has become infructuous, since the order, which is impugned herein no
longer survives for consideration in view of the subsequent judgment rendered
passed by this Court in CIT v. Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills
Ltd reported in (2008) 296 ITR 53 (Madras) as well as the judgment dated
01.05.2018 of the supreme court in C.A. No. 3246 of 2008 in the case of the
Appellant /Assessee's own case reported in (2008) 301 ITR 434 (SC). Stating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 583 of 2021
so, the learned counsel has also filed a memo dated 17.12.2021, the relevant
paragraphs of which, are usefully extracted below:
“2. The impugned order in the present appeal
is preferred against the order of the ITAT dated
09.12.1996 in I.T.A. No. 719/Mds/1994. The Appellant
subsequently preferred a miscellaneous application in
terms of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. In the
said application, the original order of the ITAT dated
9.12.1996 was recalled for fresh adjudication vide
order dated 31.01.2003 in M.P. No. 40/Mds/2000.
3. The Department has filed appeal in terms
of section 260-A of the Act against the order of the
ITAT recalling their original order in T.C.A. No. 2 of
2004. In order to protect the interest of the Appellant,
the present appeal was filed belatedly against the
original order of the ITAT dated 09.12.1996.
4. Subsequently, this Hon'ble Court vide its
judgment dated 11.12.2006 reported in [296-ITR-53]
allowed the appeal of the department nullifying the
order of recall.
5. The said judgment was a subject matter of
appeal before the Apex Court in C.A. No. 3246/2008.
The Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated
01.05.2008 reported in 301-ITR-434 had upheld the
action of the ITAT in recalling its order while setting
aside the appeal back to file of this Hon'ble Court for
fresh adjudication on merits.
6. In consequence to the directions issued by
the Apex Court, this Hon'ble Court vide judgment
dated 12.08.2014 in T.C.A. No. 2 of 2004 reported in
54 taxmann.com 73 dismissed the appeal of the
department preferred against the order of the ITAT in
MP proceedings recalling its earlier order.
7. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned
order in the present appeal no longer survives in view
of the finality obtained to the MP proceedings before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 583 of 2021
ITAT, Chennai which recalled the impugned order for
fresh adjudication.
8. In light of the facts and circumstances, it is
prayed that this Hon'ble Bench may dispose off the
present appeal as infructuous in view of the non-
existence of the impugned order and thus render
justice.”
4. Recording the above submission and the memo dated 17.12.2021
filed on behalf of the appellant /assessee, this tax case appeal is dismissed as
having become infructuous. No costs.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
17.12.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Maya/rsh
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Chennai 'A' Bench.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA No. 583 of 2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
Maya/rsh
T.C.A. No. 583 of 2021
17.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
