2020 (6) TMI 198 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - disallowing exemption under Section 80-1B (11C) - writ petitions were filed challenging the assessment order passed on remand and invoking Section 115-JC - violation of principle relating to natural justice - HELD THAT - Any tax holiday can be granted to a person who declares a truthful return. It cannot and should not be granted to the person who claims that he purchased medical equipments in the guise of treating poor persons for a sum of ₹ 2,32,79,760/- and it is subsequently found that the entire transaction is bogus. We find every justification in the order of the Assessment Officer invoking Section 115JC which provision is squarely applicable. It is also seen that C.P.Anbunathan had further stated in his statement that the demand draft drawn in the name of M/s.Sowdambika Traders was received by Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Center, Madurai and in turn cash was handed over by him to the petitioner Dr.S.Gurushankar after deducting commission of one percentage. Naturally, when commercial trade is indulged in the guise of serving the poor and needy and seeking tax holiday, this court can never come to the rescue of the petitioner. The account books of Meenakshi Hospital, Thanjavur were also verified and it was seen that the demand draft was never reflected in the accounts and only cash payment has been made. Petitioner cannot complain about violation of any principle relating to natural justice. An assessment order has been passed. An appellate remedy is available. The petitioner has consciously decided to forego that remedy. If the assessment order is examined further, it also reveals that during the demonetisation period, the petitioner had deposited a total sum of ₹ 7,54,77,619/- in cash, and when the assessee was asked to explain the source, he stated that he was running Meenakshi Mission Hospital at Thanjavur, for which, the tax holiday is now being sought. The hospital has been the source for a huge cash holding of ₹ 7,54,77,619/-. It is a wonder that the petitioner actually seeks tax holiday. This Writ Petition has to suffer an order of dismissal.

Issues Involved:
1. Tax holiday eligibility under Section 80-IB(11C) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Invocation of Section 115-JC of the Income Tax Act.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Promissory estoppel based on the Finance Minister's budget speech.
5. Alleged fraudulent transactions and bogus claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Tax Holiday Eligibility Under Section 80-IB(11C):
The petitioner, who set up a hospital in a rural area, claimed a five-year tax holiday under Section 80-IB(11C) of the Income Tax Act, as announced by the Finance Minister. The hospital commenced operations on 05.01.2013, and the petitioner filed returns claiming deductions. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed full exemptions and granted only partial deductions (75%, 50%, and 25% for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016, respectively). The petitioner appealed, and the Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to allow 100% deduction. The Assessing Officer, upon remand, invoked Section 115-JC, leading to further disputes and writ petitions.

2. Invocation of Section 115-JC:
The Assessing Officer invoked Section 115-JC of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to alternate minimum tax, stating that the adjusted total income should be deemed the total income if the regular income tax payable is less than the alternate minimum tax. The petitioner challenged this invocation, arguing that it was not justified, especially since Section 115-JC was not initially invoked in the original assessment orders. The court found justification in the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 115-JC, particularly in light of the alleged fraudulent transactions.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that invoking Section 115-JC without proper notice violated principles of natural justice. The court examined this claim and referenced various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, which indicated that principles of natural justice must be observed in quasi-judicial functions. However, the court concluded that in this case, the petitioner had not proven any real prejudice due to the alleged violation and that the invocation of Section 115-JC was justified based on the facts presented.

4. Promissory Estoppel Based on Finance Minister's Budget Speech:
The petitioner claimed that the Finance Minister's budget speech, which led to the insertion of Section 80-IB(11C), created a promissory estoppel. The court noted that while the interim order in earlier writ petitions mentioned promissory estoppel, it did not interfere with the assessment orders on this ground. The court did not find the argument of promissory estoppel compelling in this case.

5. Alleged Fraudulent Transactions and Bogus Claims:
The court examined the assessment order in detail, which revealed that the petitioner had claimed purchases of medical equipment from a non-existent entity, M/s. Sowdambika Traders, amounting to ?2,32,79,760/-. The investigation found that the transactions were bogus, with no actual medical equipment supplied. The court emphasized that tax holidays should not be granted to those who engage in fraudulent transactions. The court found justification in the Assessing Officer's actions and dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the significant discrepancies and fraudulent claims made by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 115-JC and rejecting the claims of violation of natural justice and promissory estoppel. The court found substantial evidence of fraudulent transactions, which justified the denial of the tax holiday and the invocation of alternate minimum tax provisions. The petitioner's failure to pursue available appellate remedies further weakened their case.

← Previous Next →