Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Thiagarajar Mills Ltd.

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.@mdashT.C. (A) No. 446 of 2007 is filed u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench "C" in I.T.A. No. 1565/Mds/2004 dated April 21, 2006, for the assessment year 1999-2000, raising the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excise duty and sales tax do not form part of the turnover, for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC?

2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional liability on account of purchase of plant and machinery, which arose due to exchange fluctuation has to be treated as revenue expenditure?

2. T.C. (A) Nos. 830 and 831 of 2007 are filed u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench "C", Chennai in I.T.A. Nos. 1673 and 1674/Mds/03 dated November 23, 2005, for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively, raising the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excise duty, sales tax and conversion charges do not form part of the turnover, for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC?

2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional liability on account of purchase of plant and machinery, which arose due to exchange fluctuation has to be treated as revenue expenditure?

3. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:

The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The relevant assessment years are 1999-2000, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the corresponding accounting years ended on March 31, 1999, March 31, 1997 and March 31, 1998, respectively. For the said assessment years, the assessee filed returns of income and the Assessing Officer completed the assessments and restricted the benefit u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act ("the Act" in short) by including excise duty, sales tax and conversion charges to the total turnover. Further, the assessee claimed a portion of additional liability on account of purchase of plant and machinery, which arose due to exchange fluctuation, as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same and treated the additional liability as capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the excise duty, sales tax and conversion charges are not includible in the total turnover for the purpose of Section 80HHC of the Act. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the additional liability on account of plant and machinery which arose due to exchange fluctuation has to be treated as revenue expenditure. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal" in short). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.

4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly stated that the issue in respect of question No. 1 in both the tax cases, stand covered by the Supreme Court''s judgment reported in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works, . Hence, in respect of Question No. 1 in both the tax cases, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this court.

5. In respect of question No. 2 in both the tax cases, it is seen that the Tribunal followed the assessee''s own case relating to the earlier assessment year 1995-96 and held as follows:

It transpires that this issue, on identical facts, has been decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal in I.T.A. 1778/Mds/98 in assessee''s own case for the assessment year 1995-96. In this decision, the Tribunal had placed reliance on the hon''ble Madras High Court decision in LAKSHMI CARD CLOTHING MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, TAMIL NADU-V, MADRAS., wherein it was held that the additional liability arising out of devaluation can be taken to be of the same character as of the original receipt or the original liability and it cannot be taken to be having a different character. Adhering to the doctrine of binding precedents, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) treating the liability on exchange fluctuation of machinery which was claimed as replacement in earlier year as revenue expenditure.

6. It is seen that the Tribunal consistently following the issue in favour of the assessee for the earlier assessment years, by relying on this Court judgment reported in the case of LAKSHMI CARD CLOTHING MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, TAMIL NADU-V, MADRAS., . The Revenue is unable to bring to our notice any compelling reason to take a different view and also there is no detail as to whether the Revenue has preferred any appeal against the earlier Tribunal orders or not. In view of the same, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Under the circumstances, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court in respect of question No. 2 in both the tax cases.

7. In the result, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court and accordingly, the tax cases are dismissed.

8. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2007 in T.C. (A) No. 831 of 2007 is closed. No costs.