9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive the taxes. The Board was, however, of the opinion that the expression to consider would enable the company to claim such benefits if in future, the Government policy changes. The scheme did not contain any mandate to the Income Tax Department to grant the tax concession requested by the petitioner company. Firstly, the Department had objected to any concession being granted. Secondly, before the Board, it was pointed out that without quantification, the Revenue would not be in a position to give any concession and thirdly, in this respect, the scheme envisaged only to consider the request for tax concession. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that under the scheme, the direction was issued to the Income Tax Department to grant the benefit and that all that was left to be done was to compute the benefit. The facts in case of Tube Investments of India [ 2012 (1) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] court has held that the scheme should be read as a whole and that the authority was therefore bound to grant such benefit. From the judgment, it is not clear whether the Income Tax Department had opposed granting of any such concession to the company whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y relief to the company since at present there is no policy for providing reliefs and concessions to the sick company. IDBI (OA) referred to para 11.3 of circulated DRS and said that no monitory relief has been sought by the company. The Bench observed that it is possible that the State Govt comes up any time with a new policy giving reliefs and concessions to the sick companies hence this para may not be deleted. The Bench considered it appropriate to prefix to consider to this relief so as to enable the company to avail the reliefs and concessions, if any, are provided by the State Govt. in future. Hence, the Bench directed that to consider be preferred to the para 11.3 a) in place of to grant . 2.1 The ld. advocate of DIT (R) referred to Deptts. letter dt. 15.2.2012 stating that the company has not quantified any tax liability in the projected statement. The reliefs sought by the company can be considered only after the details are received from the company. The Bench noted that in sub paras of a) to d) of 11.2.2 to consider has already been prefixed. The Bench further noted that the reliefs sought in sub para d) of para 11.2.2 cannot be granted as it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fivefold rise to ₹ 591.23 lacs from ₹ 107.43 lacs in the corresponding period of 2015. Recognizing this turnaround in business, the share price of company reached all time high at ₹ 382 on 2.2.2.2017 and the share currently as on 1.3.2017 trades at ₹ 335 in BSE as against ₹ 100/- on 16.5.2016. This clearly shows that company is not in need of any help from the revenue and the sanctioned scheme has successfully revived the sick company even without any relief from us. During the entire sanctioned scheme period starting from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2017, the company has paid taxes only in A.Y. 2016-17 and would also pay the same in A.Y. 2017-18. Its reserves had increased to ₹ 12.99 crores as on 31.3.2016 and would rise meteorically by the end of this year as its nine months earning per share rises to ₹ 11.59 as on 31.12.2016 as compared to ₹ 2.65 on 31.12.2015. All these details show that the company has successfully implemented the sanctioned scheme and needs compliment but no compensation in the form of any Income Tax Relief. 12. In the backdrop of above facts, the competent authority i.e C.B.D.T. has not found your case fit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be granted. 9. Chapter II of SICA pertains to references, inquiries and schemes. Section 15 of the SICA pertains to reference to the Board. Upon such reference being made under Section 16, inquiry into working of sick industrial company would be undertaken. Section 17 pertains to powers of Board to make suitable order on the completion of inquiry. Section 18 of SICA pertains to preparation and sanction of schemes. Subsection (1) of Section 18 envisages preparation of the draft scheme by the operating agency appointed by the Board. Under clause (a) of sub-section (3), the scheme prepared by the operating agency would be examined by the Board and the scheme with or without modification in draft format would be sent to the company and the operating agency. Under sub-section (4) of Section 18, the Board would sanction the scheme which would come into effect from the specified date. Section 19 pertains to rehabilitation. Relevant portion of this Section reads thus:- 19. Rehabilitation by giving financial assistance.-( 1) Where the scheme relates to preventive, ameliorative, remedial and other measures with respect to any sick industrial company, the sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 13.1.2012 under which the the Department had objected to the grant of the reliefs of tax concession at the time of preparation of the scheme. It was in this background, the impugned order records that no consent was given by the Department for such reliefs without which in view of Section 19 of the Act, the BIFR could not have given directions for tax waiver. In this context, the expression to consider has to be understood. The petitioner has not disputed the existence of the said letter dated 13.1.2012 or that the said letter did not contain the Department s objection to grant of the relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner merely stated that the letter appears to have been written by the Department directly to the Board and the petitioner, therefore, had no knowledge about the same. 12. In any case, in view of clear stand of the Department raising specific objection at the time of framing of the scheme against grant of tax waiver, the BIFR could not have in the final scheme given directions for giving such benefits. As noted, in the scheme itself, this aspect has been discussed. We have reproduced the relevant portion of this final scheme. For better appreciation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as pointed out that without quantification, the Revenue would not be in a position to give any concession and thirdly, in this respect, the scheme envisaged only to consider the request for tax concession. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that under the scheme, the direction was issued to the Income Tax Department to grant the benefit and that all that was left to be done was to compute the benefit. 15. Delhi High Court in case of CIMMCO Ltd (supra) was dealing with an entirely different situation. It was a case in which the sick company had requested for certain concessions from the Railway Authorities in the process of competing for tender for supplying wagons. In this regard, the Court held that the concessions envisaged in Section 19 of SICA were not necessarily confined to the financial concessions. It was the scheme under the SICA which required the railways to consider the bid of the company after excluding the period of closure. It was, in this context, the Court held that this term in scheme was not merely recommendatory. The facts are thus, clearly different. 16. The facts in case of Tube Investments of India (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
