Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (5) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessment Years 1995-1996, 1996- 1997 and 1997-1998 respectively. 2. T.C.A.Nos.2030, 2032 and 2034 of 2008 have been filed by the Assessee, challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 11.04.2008, in respect of the Assessment Years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1997- 1998 respectively, in dismissing the applications filed to condone the delay of 496 days in filing cross objections. 3. The Tax Case Appeals in T.C.A.Nos.2029, 2031 and 2033 of 2008 were admitted on 23.01.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not eligible for deduction under section 80HH of the act since the backward area got subsequently den .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Arcot District, now in Vellore District, Wallajah Taluk, was notified as backward area and it was specified as such in the 8th Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee therefore claimed deduction under Section 80 HH of the Act. The Deduction under Section 80HH was also granted from the Assessment Year 1988-1989 which was the first year of commencement of production. Subsequently Walaja Taluk was removed from the list of backward area by Taxation Amendment Act, 1987 and by Notification No.7056 dated 19.12.1986. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued Circular No.484 dated 15.05.1987 to the effect that an undertaking which had already been set up in a Backward area will continue to get the benefit under Section 80-HH of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Assessee was filed listing out the reason for not preferring the Cross objections, within the stipulated time. The Tribunal dealt with this aspect as under: "10.As far as cross objections are concerned, there was a delay of 496 days Sri S.Ravindran Director of Assessee Company filed an affidavit stating the following reasons for the delay of filing the cross objections. "1.I state that the Departmental Grounds of appeal was received by the company on 17.07.2006 and the cross objection ought to have been filed on or before 16.08.2006. However, the cross objection was actually filed on 24.12.2007 resulting in a delay of 495 days. 2. I state that the Respondent had claimed relief under Section 80HH in respect of an undertaking which ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred in filing the present appeal. We are not satisfied with the reasons given by the Assessee in the Affidavit and there is no reasonable cause in filing the present appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we dismiss the Assessee's cross objections as time barred." 4. From the reading of the order extracted above, it is clear that the Tribunal had not given any reason for not remitting the matter back to CIT(A), which had not given any finding with respect to alternate prayer seeking relief under Section 80 IA. In the order of the CIT (Appeals), though it had been recorded that an alternate argument was put forth with respect to the claim under Section 80 IA, no specific finding had been given on that issue. The order of CIT (Appeals) is quote .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty was sought and on the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that exemption cannot be granted. 6. The learned counsel for the Revenue also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. ACE Multi Axes Systems Ltd. reported in 400 ITR 41 SC, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if an Assessee did not retain a character of small scale industrial undertaking, then the incentive meant for such category cannot be continued under Section 80 IB of the Act. 7. Drawing a parallel analogy, Mr.T.Ravikumar, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue argued that in the present case on the shifting of the Industrial Unit to Pulivalam from Sholingur, on that particular da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates