9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue of claim for benefit under Section 80 HH if deemed necessary, on order being passed by the Tribunal on this remand order and on the claim under Section 80 IA. Consequently, keeping the issue relating to Claim of benefit under Section 80 HH open,the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the claim for benefit under Section 80IA of the Act. - Tax Case Appeal Nos. 2029 to 2034 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2019 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan For the Appellant : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For the Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT MR.C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the alternate plea that if the undertaking was not found eligible for deduction under section 80HH of the Act, then it ought to be considered to be a new industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction under section 80IA of the Act? 4. The Tax Case Appeals in T.C.A.Nos.2030, 2032 and 2034 of 2008 are 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 justified in dismissing the cross objections filed by the assessee as time barred by 496 days? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the alternate plea that if the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Pulivalam were in Walajah Taluk. Since, Walajah Taluk had originally been notified as a Backward area and since the Assessee had continued to avail the benefit under Section 80 HH, the Assessee also claimed extension of the benefit even after shifting the factory from Sholingur to Pulivalam. The Assessment Officer, rejected this claim. Before the CIT (Appeals), the Assessee raised an alternate ground seeking benefit under Section 80 IA of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) who dealt with the Appeal preferred by the Revenue, rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80 HH, but did not give any finding in relation to the claim for alternate relief sought with respect to Section 80-IA of the Act. The Assessee then filed an Appeal before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng. 3. I state that the CIT (A) has allowed the appeal directing grant of relief under Section 80HH but has omitted to consider the alternate issue viz., availability of relief under Section 80IA. The Assessee was under the impression that this issue can be raised before the Tribunal as it should be considered as having rejected by the CIT(A). However, the Respondent has now been advised that they should file a Cross Objection raising this specific issue. 4. I State that the delay in filing the cross objection is due to the bonafide belief of the Assessee that this issue can be raised in the appeal by the Department. This goes to the very root of the matter and the facts are already on record. Therefore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1.05.87 clarified in respect of undertakings set up before 10.09.86 in a backward area will continue to get the benefits of deduction u/s 80HH for the remaining number of years despite the denotification of the area done subsequently. In other words the deduction being availed by the appellant continued to be available to it. Alternatively it was also argued that if the claim of its continued eligibility u/s 80HH was to be rejected then it ought to be considered to be a new industrial undertaking for the purposes of and within the meaning of provisions u/s 80IA of the Act and in this case it was not hit by the restrictions placed in clause II to section 80IA and would continue to enjoy fresh benefits for a period of 10 years from the A.Y 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. However, we find that the claim of the Appellant for deduction under Section 80 IA had not been properly considered and consequently, we hold that it would only be just and proper that the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on that aspect alone. 9. We are keeping the issue of grant or otherwise of benefit under Section 80 HH open. It will be permissible for any of the parties to approach the High Court again to raise the issue of claim for benefit under Section 80 HH if deemed necessary, on order being passed by the Tribunal on this remand order and on the claim under Section 80 IA. Consequently, keeping the issue relating to Claim of benefit under Section 80 HH open,the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
