Madras High Court
Peacock Apparels (P) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 28 March, 2022
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
Peacock Apparels (P) Ltd.,
82, Aruppukottai Road,
Madurai – 625 012. ...Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Company Circle – 1,
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 'B' Bench,
Chennai in I.T.A.No.8/Mds/08 dated 27.11.2009.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Pushpa,
Junior Standing Counsel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
According to the appellant / assessee, they are carrying on business in
manufacturing and exporting garments. For the assessment year 2003-04,
they filed its return on 31.10.2003, admitting an income of Rs.12,77,616/-.
After scrutiny of the same, the assessment was completed on 15.04.2005
under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'),
determining the total income at Rs.13,02,616/-. Thereafter, notice under
section 263 came to be issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax-I,
Madurai, on the premise that while computing the income, the assessing
officer allowed the deduction of Rs.1,27,52,945/- with respect to export of
garments, claimed by the appellant / assessee under section 10B of the Act,
however, in the profit and loss account, it was noticed that the business
income includes other income to the tune of Rs.1,75,917/- (Rs.1,08,797/-
towards interest receipts + Rs.67,120/- towards quota premium), which was
not export oriented income to be qualified for deduction under section 10B
of the Act. Upon receipt of the notice, the appellant / assessee through its
authorised representatives, made its submissions. However, by order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
28.11.2007, the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Madurai, rejected the same
and directed the assessing officer to exclude the said sum of Rs.1,75,917/-
out of deduction under section 10B and recompute the total income
accordingly. Challenging the said order, the appellant / assessee preferred
an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, in
ITA No.8/Mds/2008, which was dismissed by order dated 27.11.2009, after
having held that “it is very well established that there was an error in the
order of the Assessing Officer by granting deduction under section 10B of
the Act to the items, which were not eligible and this resulted in prejudice
to the revenue and thus, the learned CIT had correctly exercised his
jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act”. Aggrieved over the order so
passed by the Tribunal, the appellant / assessee has come up with this tax
case appeal.
2.On 22.02.2010, this court admitted this appeal on the following
substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal is right in affirming the order of the revisional authority under
section 263 contrary to the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2000)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
243 ITR 83 [Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T] and (2007) 295 ITR 282
[C.I.T. v. Max India Ltd] and jurisdictional High Court reported in (2007)
294 ITR 121 [C.I.T v. Mepco Industries Ltd] especially when the Assessing
Officer has adopted a possible view?”
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing on two occasions viz.,
07.03.2022 and 21.03.2022, there was no representation for the
appellant/assessee and hence, the same was directed to be listed under the
caption “For Dismissal” on 28.03.2022 i.e., today. Accordingly, the case is
listed today under the caption, “For Dismissal”. However, there is no
representation for the appellant/assessee.
4.On the other hand, Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondent / Revenue submitted that during the pendency
of this appeal, the respondent by order dated 24.03.2008, has given effect to
the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – I,
Madurai under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act; and the said order dated
24.03.2008 was put to challenge by the appellant/assessee by filing
I.T.A.No.0022/08-09 before the Commissioner of Income Tax
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
(Appeals) – I, Madurai, however, the said appeal ended in dismissal on
28.01.2010. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel produced
the copies of the orders so passed by the authorities concerned, in the form
of typed set of papers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, nothing
survives for further adjudication in this appeal.
5.In view of the subsequent development as stated above, we dismiss
this tax case appeal, leaving the substantial question of law open for
consideration in an appropriate case. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
28.03.2022
mrr
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Judgement (or) Non-Speaking Judgement
To
1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Company Circle – 1, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
mrr
T.C.A.No.158 of 2010
28.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
