Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Ambatture Clothing Ltd on 2 August, 2010
Author: F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla
Bench: F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, M.M.Sundresh
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 02.08.2010
Coram :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
Tax Case (Appeal) No.695 of 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai. .. Appellant
vs.
M/s. Ambatture Clothing Ltd.
86-E/2, Industrial Estate
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. .. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 18.12.2009 passed in I.T.A.No.1363/Mds/2008.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Subramanian
Sr. Standing Counsel for Income-tax
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayan for
M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
---
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)
The Revenue has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2009 passed in ITA.No.1363 of 2008. The assessment year pertains to 2003-04. The issue arose out of rectification order passed by the Assessing Authority by order dated 11.06.2007 invoking his power under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act.
2. According to the Assessing Authority, the assessee, which is an export concern, claimed the benefits under Section 10A/10B of the Act, apart from claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, for the remaining 10% of the profits, which was to suffer tax, after applying Section 10A/10B of the Act. According to the Assessing Authority, such a claim made under Section 80HHC in respect of the remaining 10% of the profits amounted to a claim of double deduction, which was not permissible. On the said basis, the Assessing Authority took the view that the said issue was an apparent mistake on the face of the record, which he rectified by passing his order dated 11.06.2007.
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) having partly allowed the appeal, the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that such a claim made under Section 80HHC of the Act for the remaining 10% of the profits cannot be held to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the view taken by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order was a possible view. In other words, the Tribunal held that it cannot be said that there was any error apparent on the face of the record in order to invoke Section 154 of the Act and by passing a rectification order, virtually passed an order of review of Assessing Authority's original order of assessment.
4. When we examine the issue raised in this appeal, at the very outset, it will have to be pointed out that even under Section 10A(6)(iii) of the Act, there is a specific provision, which reads as under:
"No deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-I or section 80-IA or section 80-IB in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking; and"
5. The very statutory provision prescribing a prohibition in respect of the deductions in relation to the profits and gains itself, has not specifically included Section 80HHC. Apparently, it therefore would only mean that there was no prohibition for claiming any deduction under Section 80HHC while applying the benefits provided under Section 10A of the Act. If that is the statutory prescription, by which the assessee was entitled to claim a benefit under Section 80HHC in relation to the profits and gains while invoking Section 10A, it will have to be concluded that the assessment order in having allowed such a deduction of the remaining 10% of the profits earned by the assessee, was not erroneous. In any event, having regard to such a statutory prescription available for the assessee to claim the benefit under Section 80HHC in respect of the profits earned from Section 10A of the Act, there is absolutely no scope for the Assessing Authority to have invoked Section 154 of the Act, in order to state that, that can be considered as an error apparent, inasmuch as, there was no error at all, much less, apparent error to be rectified by the Assessing Authority.
6. This conclusion of ours is apart from the conclusion of the Tribunal in having held that in that situation what was held by the Assessing Authority in the original assessment order was a possible view and that cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of the records.
7. We, therefore, do not find any scope to entertain this appeal, inasmuch as we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law. This appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Index : yes (F.M.I.K.J) (M.M.S.J.)
Internet: yes 02.08.2010.
ATR
To
1. The Secretary
Central Board of Direct Taxes
New Delhi.
2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Madras 'A' Bench
Madras.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII
No.121, M.G.Road, Chennai 600034.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Company Circle-I(1), Chennai.
F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J,
and
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
ATR TC (A) No.695 of 2010 02.08.2010.