Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Ponni Sugars And on 7 September, 2018
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Tax Case Appeal No.1434 of 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai. .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Ponni Sugars and
Chemicals Ltd.,
Esvin House, Perungudi,
Chennai 600 096. .. Respondent
* * *
Prayer : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, dated 31.12.2007 in I.T.A.No.159/Mds/1996 .
* * *
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar,
Senior Standing Counsel
* * *
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench B, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.159/Mds/1996, dated 31.12.2007 for the assessment year 1992-1993.
2. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law vide order dated 10.09.2008:
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest and Miscellaneous receipts are to be considered as income derived from the business for the purpose of deduction under section 801?
3.We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue.
4.Before we venture to examine the above question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, we are required to examine the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned before us. The above issue has dealt with in paragraph 15 of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is extracted hereunder:
Coming to the next issue whether interest and other miscellaneous receipts will qualify for deduction under Sec.80-I of the I.T.Act. The ld. CIT(A) found that this was shown as other income only to meet the requirements of the Companies Act. Therefore, the income put under the head other income never ceases to be business income. Admittedly, these were essentially business receipts and this feature was not peculiar to this year alone. It was present in the earlier years' also and for those years, they were rightly treated as business receipts. Under the circumstances, the learned D.R. accepted the same as business receipts. To be consistent with the earlier years findings, he also relied that portion of the amounts which were treated as business receipts as derived from industrial undertaking. Therefore, we also do not want to deviate from the consistency adopted by the ld. CIT(A) for this year also. We agree with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) by rejecting this ground of the Revenue.
5.From the above, it is evidently clear that the income put under the head other income was treated as business income for the earlier assessment years also and the Tribunal pointed out that it was not a peculiar feature for the assessment year 1992-1993 alone. Confronted with this factual situation, department's representative accepted the same as business receipt.
6.In the light of the above factual position, we are of the firm view that the above question of law does not arise for consideration, since, the department had accepted before the Tribunal that the interest and other miscellaneous receipts qualify for deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the department themselves have treated the same as business receipts for all the previous years and they also accepted for the year under consideration, it should be treated as business receipt.
7.Thus, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that they do not want to deviate from the consistency adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the year under consideration as was done for the previous years.
8.For the above reasons, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and we hold that the above substantial question of law does not arise for consideration. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
07.09.2018
mp/gg
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chennai.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
mp/gg
T.C.A.No.1434 of 2008
07.09.2018