2020 (9) TMI 1020 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - whether case is covered by exceptions provided under clause (10)(c) of Circular No.3 of 2018 wherein it has been clearly stated that the cases involving revenue audit objection which had been accepted by the department are to be disposed off on merits? - deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT - The reason being that the assessee had omitted to adjust the business loss and unobserved depreciation of the assessment years 2007-08 2008-09 and he had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 10A(2)(ii) and (iii) - assessee vide letter dated 04.11.2015 stated that the return originally filed under Section 139 of the Act may be treated as a return filed pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148. The assessee after obtaining reasons for reopening had objected to the same, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 07.03.2016. Consequently the reassessment was completed vide order dated 30.03.2016. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)-4, Chennai, CIT(A) . By order dated 30.03.2016, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that reopening was not justified as well as on merits. Questioning such an order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the impugned order, on the ground of Low Tax Effect, which we have held to be not sustainable. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, especially the last fact finding authority should have disposed off the matter on merits especially in cases where the Revenue audit objections had been accepted by the department? - Second Substantial Question of Law raised by the Revenue in this appeal has been decided earlier by the Division Bench of this Court and the legal issue is no longer res integra . At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Comstar Automative Technologies Pvt Ltd. 2020 (7) TMI 730 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The Substantial Question of Law framed for consideration in that appeal was identical to that of the case on hand except for the fact in the said case, the provision which was pressed into the service is Section 10B of the Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by judgment dated 06.07.2020 following the decision in the said assessee's case in M/s.Comstar Automative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2020 (3) TMI 814 - MADRAS HIGH COURT .

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's dismissal of departmental appeal based on low tax effect without considering exceptions under Circular No.3 of 2018.
2. Whether the Tribunal should have disposed of the matter on merits when Revenue audit objections were accepted.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around the Tribunal's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal based on low tax effect without considering the exceptions under Circular No.3 of 2018. The Revenue contended that the Circular did not apply to the case as it fell within Clause 10(c) of the Circular, allowing appeals to be pursued despite the low tax effect. The Court observed that an audit objection had been raised, bringing the case within the exception specified in the Circular. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, ruling in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Issue 2:
The second issue raised was whether the Tribunal should have disposed of the matter on merits, particularly when Revenue audit objections had been accepted. The Court noted that the tax demanded from the respondent was relatively low at ?2,78,840. Despite the low demand, the Court decided to hear the matter on its merits. The case involved a Private Limited Company that had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10, claiming deductions under Section 10A of the Act. The assessment was reopened due to alleged omissions, leading to subsequent appeals and orders. The Court emphasized the importance of considering cases on their merits, especially when audit objections had been acknowledged.

In a related note, the Court referred to a previous judgment by the Division Bench in a similar case, highlighting the importance of addressing legal issues comprehensively. The Court's decision in this case favored the appellant/Revenue for Issue 1 and the respondent/assessee for Issue 2, based on the circumstances and legal precedents cited.