Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Thiruvalla v. DCIT, Thiruvalla

ITA 885/COCH/2008 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 88521914 RSA 2008
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number ITA 885/COCH/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Thiruvalla
Respondent DCIT, Thiruvalla
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 25-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 24-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 24-02-2010
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 29-09-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA I.T.A.NO S . 885 TO 887/COCH/2008 ASS T . YEAR S : 1999 - 2000 TO 2001 - 02 THE TRAVANCORE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD. TIRUVALLA. PA NO.AAACT 7594F VS. TH E DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 TIRUVALLA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY S MT. PREETHA S. NAIR RESPONDENT BY SHRI T.J. VINCENT JR.DR O R D E R PER N.VIJAYAKUMARAN J.M: ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 2000-01 AND 2001-02. 2. ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE DELAYED BY 195 DAYS. IN THE CONDONATION PETITION ACCOMPANYING THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS EXPLAINED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY FORWARDED TO THE ERSTWHILE MA NAGING DIRECTOR FOR APPROVAL. IN THE MEANWHILE THERE WA S A CHANGE IN THE ENTIRE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMP ANY WHICH GOT DELAY FOR THE SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE A PPEAL. ITA NOS. 885 TO 887/COCH/2008 2 THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY OF 195 DAYS IN FIL ING THE APPEAL. HENCE THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS THAT TAKING A PRAGMATIC APPROACH BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATJI AND OTHERS 167 ITR 471 DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED THE A SSESSEE IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. JR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY O PPOSED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED. THEREFORE THE DELAY OF 195 DAYS SHOUL D NOT BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED ON THIS SCORE ALONE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE AS THE DELAY HAS BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED WHICH HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS PREV ENTED FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. HEN CE TAKING THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND AD MIT THE APPEALS. ITA NOS. 885 TO 887/COCH/2008 3 5. COMING TO THE MERITS THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-IV KO CHI DATED 24-12-2007. THE FIRST ISSUE IS ON THE CHAR GEABILITY OF THE INCOME I.E. RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY WHETHER IT IS TO BE CHARGED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS INCOME. THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) FOUND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ITA NO.297/COCH/2006 DATED 24-08-2007 IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT BY UPHOLDING THE OR DER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OTHER WORDS TH E RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS BROUGHT U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE TO BE IN CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND AS THE RE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E WE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND D ISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE IS DEC IDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER A PPEAL. 6. AS WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND THAT THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME THE OTHER ITA NOS. 885 TO 887/COCH/2008 4 CONSEQUENTIAL PRAYER THAT NON ALLOWANCE AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WILL NOT SURVIVE TO TEST. IN OTHER WORDS THIS ALTERNATIVE PRAYER OF ALLOWING SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WILL AROSE ONLY WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT THE INCOME IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS I NCOME WHICH WAS NOT SO IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.VIJAYKUMARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER ERNAKULAM DATED THE 25 TH FEBRUARY 2010. PM. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE TRAVANCORE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD. VALANJAVATT OM TIRUVALLA. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 TIRUVA LLA. 3. CIT(A)-IV KOCHI 4. CIT KOTTAYAM. 5. D.R. BY ORDER SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR