Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8334 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
02-01-2019
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
03-08-2017
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! '#$ % , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1884/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-2, MADURAI. VS. M/S.MADRAS SUSPENSIONS LTD., DOOR NO.3,3 RD CROSS STREET, DSP NAGAR,BYE PASS ROAD, MADURAI 625 016. [PAN AABCM 2301 A ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.GURU BASHYAM, JCIT,D.R /RESPONDENT BY : MR.N.V.BALAJI, ADVOCATE ! ' #$% / DATE OF HEARING : 02 - 0 1 - 201 9 &' #$% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 - 0 1 - 201 9 ) / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADURA I IN APPEAL ITA NO.1884/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: NO.0085/2016-17 DATED 17.05.2017 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. MR.GURU BASHYAM REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, AND MR.N.V.BALAJI REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.D.R THAT THE ISSUE IN TH IS APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 2 CRORES WAIVED BY TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED REPRESENTING TERM LOAN FOR THE PURCHASE OF MACHINER Y AND FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ISKRAEMECO REGENT LTD. VS. CIT IN [2011] 331 ITR 317(MAD.) TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE RELIEF. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOW STOOD REVERSED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. RAMANIYAM HOMES (P.) LTD., REPORTED IN [2016] 384 I TR 530(MAD.). IT WAS A PRAYER BY LD.D.R THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(AP PEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. ITA NO.1884/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE R AISED IN THIS APPEAL WAS NOW SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER VS. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD., IN [20 18] 302 CTR 213(SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CATEG ORICALLY HELD IN PARA 17 THAT:- 17. TO SUM UP, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WI TH THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT IN VIEW OF THE F OLLOWING REASONS: (A) SECTION 28(IV) OF THE IT ACT DOES NOT APPLY ON THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE RECEIPTS OF RS.57,74,064/- ARE IN TH E NATURE OF CASH OR MONEY. (B) SECTION 41(1) OF THE IT ACT DOES NOT APPLY SINC E WAIVER OF LOAN DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CESSATION OF TRADING LIABIL ITY. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT CLAI MED ANY DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE IT ACT QUA THE PAYM ENT OF INTEREST IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF COMMISSIONER VS. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD., REFERRED TO SUPRA, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CA TEGORICALLY HELD THAT SECTION 41(1) OF THE IT ACT DOES NOT APPLY SIN CE WAIVER OF LOAN ITA NO.1884/CHNY/2017 :- 4 -: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY, THE TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT( A) ON THIS ISSUE STAND CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02 JANUARY, 2019, AT CHENNAI . SD/ - SD/ - ( () . +,+ ) ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( % ) (GEORGE MATHAN) * ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER . ' / CHENNAI / / DATED: 02 JANUARY, 2019. K S SUNDARAM 0 #12 3 2# / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ! 4# () / CIT(A) 5. 267 #8 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ! 4# / CIT 6. 79 :' / GF
