Chemmancherry Estates Company, Chennai v. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-VIII(2), Chennai-6
[Citation -2019-LL-0809-183]

Citation 2019-LL-0809-183
Appellant Name Chemmancherry Estates Company, Chennai
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer, Ward-VIII(2), Chennai-6
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 09/08/2019
Assessment Year 2001-02
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags furnished inaccurate particulars of income • interest on borrowed funds • cost of acquisition • payment of interest • claim of exemption • agricultural land • claim of interest • repayment of loan • interest payment • interest paid • capital asset • cost of asset • capital gain • urban land • borrowed fund • indexation of interest • levy of penalty
Bot Summary: Cases see what would be the effect of the land falling within the limits of CMDA. Before that, we need to note that the land has been assessed to tax as an urban land. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act, 1978 defines the urban land under Section 3(p) as follows: urban land means- any land situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan or in a case where there is no master plan, or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration but does not include any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. In case, where there is no master plan, but the land lies within the limits of an urban agglomeration it would fall outside the scope of urban land only when the land is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. The assessee, if he seeks to plead that it is not an urban land, the onus is on the assessee that the land was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Cases as an agricultural land, the assessee sold the land as an agricultural land, the total extent was in acres and not in square feet. In our considered view, the definition of agricultural land as defined in Section 2(14) clause iii of the Act hits at the assessee because the lands would fall within the jurisdiction of an urban agglomeration/Corporation. The said decision cannot render any assistance to the case of the assessee on account of the facts which were culled out by the Assessing Officer in the process of assessment establishing that the land sold by the assessee was not an agricultural land.


In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 09.8.2019 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.181 to 184, 521, 522, 545 & 546 of 2009 MP.No.1 of 2009 in TCA. No.545 of 2009 & MP.No.2 of 2009 in TCA. No.546 of 2009 M/s.Chemmancherry Estates Company, Chennai-1. ...Appellant in TCA.Nos. 181 to 184 & 545 & 546 of 2009 & Respondent in TCA.Nos.521 & 522 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-VIII, Chennai ...Appellant in TCA.Nos. 521 & 522 of 2009 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- VIII(2), Chennai-6. ...Respondent in TCA.Nos. 181 to 184 & 545 & 546 2009 APPEALS under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against (i) common order dated 27.6.2008 made in ITA.Nos.1876, 1909, 1877 & 1910/Mds/2006 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for assessment years 2001-02, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2002-03 (TCA.Nos.181 to 184 of 2009) (filed by assessee). 1/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases (ii) common order dated 28.11.2008 made in ITA.Nos.2134 & 2135/Mds/2007 for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 (TCA.Nos. 545 & 546 of 2009) (filed by assessee); and (iii) common order dated 27.6.2008 made in ITA.Nos.1909 and 1910/Mds/2006 for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 (TCA.Nos. 521 and 522 of 2009) (filed by Revenue). For Assessee: Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar For Revenue : Mr.R.Swaminathan, SSC & Mrs.V.Pushpa, SC COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have elaborately heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue. 2. TCA.Nos.181 to 184 and 545 and 546 of 2009 have been filed by assessee under Section 260A of Income Tax Act (for short, Act) challenging orders (i) dated 27.6.2008 in ITA.Nos.1876, 1909, 1877 & 1910/Mds/2006 for assessment years 2001-02, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2002-03 and (ii) dated 28.11.2008 in ITA.Nos.2134 & 2135/Mds/2007 for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, both passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. TCA.Nos.521 and 522 of 2009 have been filed by Revenue challenging common order dated 27.6.2008 in ITA.Nos.1909 and 1910/Mds/2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate 2/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. 3. TCA.Nos.181 and 183 of 2009 were admitted on 30.3.2009 on following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that land sold by appellant would not fall within meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961, to substantiate claim that no capital gains would arise therefrom? (ii) Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that appellant is not entitled to indexation of interest payment on borrowed funds used for purchase of land, which being 'cost of acquisition'? And (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in remitting back issue of allowing compound interest on borrowed funds as cost of acquisition to file of assessing officer with direction to examine genuineness of payment of interest, when CIT(A) had give categorical finding on this issue?? 4. TCA.Nos.182 and 184 of 2009 were admitted on 30.3.2009 on following substantial question of law : 3/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in remitting back issue of allowing interest on borrowed funds as cost of acquisition to file of assessing with direction to examine genuineness of payment of interest, when CIT(A) had given categorical finding on this genuineness and when Department had not questioned genuineness of payment of interest? 5. TCA.Nos.521 and 522 of 2009 were admitted on 13.7.2009 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing claim of interest for purpose of acquiring capital asset as cost of asset while computing capital gains ? And ii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in following High Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Rajagopala [reported in 252 ITR 459], as facts are distinguishable in this case, inasmuch as decision rendered in that case related to period prior to introduction of concept indexation cost? 4/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases 6. TCA.Nos.545 and 546 of 2009 were admitted on 13.7.2009 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that claim of appellant that land held by it was agricultural in nature, which had satisfied Section 2(14)(iii) and had not fallen within exclusions of Section and its claim of exemption from capital gains would amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars warranting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961? ii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on claim of appellant that land sold by it would fall within meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, exempt from capital gains ? And iii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when assessee had not done any positive act to convert agricultural land held by it into plots for real estate business ? 7. It is not out of place to mention here that by order dated 12.7.2019, we answered two issues, which arose in these appeals. relevant portions in order dated 12.7.2019 read thus : 5/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases 4. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing counsel for respondent/revenue. 5. first substantial question in TC(A) 181 & 183 of 2009 is whether land sold by appellant would fall within definition of agricultural land as defined under Section 2(14) of Clause (iii) of Act. To be noted that, Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) and Tribunal concurrently held that land sold by assessee was not agricultural land. Thus, question would be whether this Court while considering appeals under Section 260-A of Act can undertake exercise of re- appreciation of factual position. answer to this question should be in negative, as appeal under Section 260-A of Act can be decided only on substantial questions of law. 6. two authorities and Tribunal examined factual position, conduct of assessee, location of land, purchaser of land etc., and held that land sold by assessee was not agricultural land. Apart from all these factors, one another most important factor was that land would fall within jurisdiction of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). Thus, we need to 6/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases see what would be effect of land falling within limits of CMDA. Before that, we need to note that land has been assessed to tax as urban land. effect of such assessment also has to be considered. Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 defines urban land under Section 3(p) as follows: (p) urban land means- (i) any land situated within limits of urban agglomeration and referred to as such in master plan or (ii) in case where there is no master plan, or where master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within limits of urban agglomeration but does not include any such land which is mainly used for purpose of agriculture. 7. In terms of above definition, any land situated within limits of urban agglomeration and referred to as such in master plan will be urban land. In case, where there is no master plan, but land lies within limits of urban agglomeration it would fall outside scope of urban land only when land is mainly used for purpose of agriculture. Section 3(n) defines urban agglomeration as follows: (n) urban agglomeration means - (i) area comprised in urban 7/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases agglomeration specified in Schedule I; and (ii) any other area which State Government may, having regard to its location, population (population being more than one lakh) and such other relevant factors as circumstances of case may require by notification in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, declare to be urban agglomeration and any agglomeration so declared shall be deemed to belong to category II in that schedule; 8. In terms of above definition, if any land is notified by Government as urban agglomeration, it would automatically fall within said category as described in schedule. Admittedly, land has been notified to fall within jurisdiction of CMDA. provisions of Development Control Rules, which is applied by CMDA, would stand attracted to all lands, which are within urban agglomeration. Thus by virtue of notification, Government of Tamil Nadu has included area in which subject lands are situated to be part of urban agglomeration. Therefore, assessee, if he seeks to plead that it is not urban land, onus is on assessee that land was mainly used for purpose of agriculture. 9. In our considered view by operation of law, land can never be agricultural land though it is stated that in revenue record it is recorded 8/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases as agricultural land, assessee sold land as agricultural land, total extent was in acres and not in square feet. 10. In our considered view, definition of agricultural land as defined in Section 2(14) clause iii of Act hits at assessee because lands would fall within jurisdiction of urban agglomeration/Corporation. In any event, two authorities and Tribunal have extensively examined facts and concluded that land is not agricultural land. 11. We find no grounds to interfere with said factual finding concurrently recorded by authorities and Tribunal. Learned counsel placed reliance on decision in case of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Rathi [reported in 2018 404 ITR 0173 (Madras)]. said decision cannot render any assistance to case of assessee on account of facts which were culled out by Assessing Officer in process of assessment establishing that land sold by assessee was not agricultural land. facts in case of Ashok Kumar Rathi are differently couched and said decision cannot be applied to assessee's case. 12. Furthermore, entire village of Chemmancherry has been notified under provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act as well as Urban Land Tax Act 9/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases and urban land tax is collected. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land is jurisdictional officer in terms of notification issued by Government of Tamil Nadu. Thus, assessee has not made out any ground to interfere with factual finding and we hold that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration. 13. Next we have to consider substantial question of law No.3. We have carefully perused order passed by Tribunal and find that Tribunal has remanded matter for fresh consideration to Assessing Officer. assessee's case is that CIT(A) has made categorical finding regarding payment of interest by assessee, receipt issued by landlords and returns. In any event, assessee cannot be stated to be prejudiced because Tribunal has given independent reasons as to why Assessing Officer should take fresh view. Therefore, we find that there is no reason for interfering with order passed by Tribunal in remanding matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is decided against assessee. 14. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.M. Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent. Out of three substantial 10/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases questions of law framed for consideration in these appeals i.e. TCA.Nos. 181 to 184 of 2009 and TCA. Nos.521, 522, 545 & 546 of 2009. We have decided substantial questions of law No.(i) & (iii) i.e., with regard to Section 2(14)(iii) and order of remand passed by Tribunal to examine genuineness of payment of interest against assessee. other issues will be heard on next hearing date. 15. List this matter on 25.7.2019. 8. However, matters were listed only today. 9. There are two other questions, which remain to be answered by us. first aspect is with regard to interest on borrowed funds for acquiring capital asset and whether it had to be treated as cost of acquisition in computing capital gains. next aspect is with regard to indexation of interest. 10. With regard to first aspect, Tribunal, in impugned order, affirmed by order passed by CIT(A), who held that interest paid on funds borrowed for buying land had to be treated as cost of acquisition. While rendering such finding, CIT(A) relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of CIT Vs. Rajagopala Rao [reported in (2001) 252 ITR 459]. Revenue challenged this finding by filing TCA.Nos.521 and 522 of 2009. 11/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases 11. With regard to next aspect i.e. indexation of interest, by filing TCA.Nos.181 and 183 of 2009, assessee is before us challenging finding of Tribunal, which held that assessee is not entitled to indexation of interest payment on borrowed funds used for purchase of land. 12. Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue has placed reliance on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited [reported in 1998 (2) SCC 366] wherein it has been held as follows : Coming to questions raised, we find it difficult to follow how manner of repayment of loan can affect cost of assets acquired by assessee. What is actual cost must depend on amount paid by assessee to acquire asset. amount may have been borrowed by assessee. But even if assessee did not repay loan it will not alter cost of asset. If borrower defaults in repayment of part of loan, cost of asset will not change. What has to be borne in mind is that cost of asset and cost of raising money for purchase of asset are two different and independent transactions. Even if asset is purchased with no repayable subsidy received from Government, cost of asset will be price paid by assessee for acquiring asset. In instant case, 12/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases allegation is that at time of repayment of loan, there was fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange as result of which, assessee had to repay much lesser amount than he would have otherwise paid. In our judgment, this is not factor which can alter cost incurred by assessee for purchase of asset. assessee may have raised funds to purchase asset by borrowing but what assessee has paid for it, is price of asset. That price cannot change by any event subsequent to acquisition of asset. In our judgment manner or mode of repayment of loan has nothing to do with cost of asset acquired by assessee for purpose of his business. We hold that questions were rightly answered by High Court. appeals are dismissed. 13. Reliance is also placed by learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue on latest decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Tmt.D.Zeenath Vs. ITO, Ward-I(1), Nagapattinam [reported in (2019) 105 Taxmann.com 298] wherein it was held that where property was mortgaged by assessee after he had acquired property, amount paid by assessee to discharge mortgage debt by sale of said property could not be treated as cost of acquisition so as to allow same as deduction under Section 48 of Act. 13/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases 14. learned counsel for assessee contends that decision in case of Tmt.D.Zeenath could not be applied to facts of present case, as it was case where assessee mortgaged property after acquiring. 15. In our considered view, there may not be any necessity for this Court to decide these two questions namely (i) with regard to interest on borrowed funds for acquiring capital asset and whether it should be treated as cost of acquisition for computing capital gain and (ii) with regard to indexation of interest, since we affirmed order passed by Tribunal remanding matter to Assessing Officer to examine correctness of payment of interest. 16. In fact, Assessing Officer, while completing assessment under Section 143 read with Section 147 of Act, held that there was no agreement between lender and recipients as to date of repayment, rate of interest, for which, money is lent, etc. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that plea raised by assessee that they availed loans from five of their sister concerns at different rates of interest is only afterthought to reduce capital gains tax liability. 17. Tribunal remanded matter for fresh consideration to examine genuineness of transaction. Thus, unless and until assessee is able to succeed before Assessing Officer in de novo proceedings to be conducted on remand, question of considering as to 14/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases whether interest on borrowed funds should be treated as cost of acquisition and as to whether assessee is entitled to indexation of interest would not arise. Thus, in our considered view, in light of our decision to approve order of remand for examining genuineness of loan transactions, two issues pointed out above have become academic and are not required to be answered at this juncture. 18. Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue has pointed out that Tribunal followed decision in case of K.Rajagopala Rao, which was rendered without noticing decision in case of Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for assessee submits that while deciding issue in case of K.Rajagopala Rao, Division Bench of this Court confirmed decision of Tribunal, which relied upon decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Challapalli Sugars Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC)]. 20. In turn, it is submission of Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue that decision in case of Challapalli Sugars Limited is entirely on different set of facts and that Tribunal, in decision in case of K.Rajagopala Rao, erred in relying upon decision in case of Challapalli Sugars Limited and that decision in case of Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited lays down correct position. 15/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases 21. In any event, we have already held that two issues, which we have pointed out above, are not required to be decided at this juncture, as they have become academic. However, we are conscious of fact that Revenue is on appeal as against finding rendered by Tribunal by filing TCA.Nos.521 and 522 of 2009. Since we have held that there is no necessity to decide aforementioned two questions, we have to necessarily interfere with order passed by Tribunal, which granted relief to assessee based on decision in case of K.Rajagopala Rao. 22. For above reasons, TCA.Nos.521 and 522 of 2009 are allowed and substantial questions of law are answered in favour of Revenue. Further, we make it clear that subject to decision that may be taken by Assessing Officer pursuant to remand order passed by Tribunal, which we have affirmed, we leave it open to assessee to claim deduction under Section 48 of Act and make further claim that interest on borrowed funds should be treated as cost of acquisition as well as aspect regarding indexation of interest and compound interest. 23. TCA.Nos.545 and 546 of 2009 : These appeals are filed by assessee challenging common order dated 28.11.2008, by which, Tribunal confirmed order of levy of penalty. We have already extracted substantial questions of law, which were admitted. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for 16/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases Revenue. 24. endeavour of Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for assessee is to convince this Court that there was no wilfulness on part of assessee to declare land as agricultural land for purpose of claiming benefits and even though this Court in TCA.Nos.181 and 183 of 2009 affirmed finding of Tribunal that land in question is not agricultural land, that, by itself, will not be reason to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Act unless and until it is established that assessee had wilfully concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars or taken false plea. 25. learned counsel for assessee has placed reliance on decision in case of CIT Vs. Gem Granites [reported in (2013) 80 CCH 0160 ChenHC], to which, one of us (TSSJ) was party. 26. appeals in TCA.Nos.181 and 183 of 2009 were relating to quantum assessments for year 2001-02 and 2002-03. Admittedly, assessee treated land as non agricultural land and this aspect has been noted by Assessing Officer in following terms : Further, in page 3 part 2 of sale deed, there is mention that as per agreement dated 29.6.2000, necessary amount to be paid to promoters and developers of this plot Sri.R.P. Dharmalingam and Shri.V.Shanmugam for purpose of filling sand, leveling, forming roads, 17/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases carrying out other developmental activities and approval of CMDA and other local bodies should be paid by you directly to them in time and you should obtain necessary receipt for this separately subject to this condition property as per schedule is handed over to you. Therefore, intention of both purchaser and seller are not conduct agricultural operations in said land, but to convert land into house sites for sale. Though assessee claims that land as agricultural and situated in village, it is within area marked in CMDA map and urban land tax has been paid. agricultural operations have been abandoned because water is salty and no agricultural operations even ploughing and tilling has been done and it remains as barren land. There is only one bore well for vast land of this area, that too, has only salt water. Neither there is any big well for irrigation purpose nor there is any farm house. Further, it is not stop gap arrangement to continue agricultural operations in future. CMDA and local bodies permission has been sought through developers to convert land into house plots. Not even single rupee has been earned for years together by way of agricultural production. land has been plotted and roads laid before sale, land very well situate in developed area where industries and colleges have come up and land is 18/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases sold on cent basis, which is normally case in sale of house sites only. purchaser is housing cooperative society purchasing land for promotion of plots for house construction. On local enquiry, it was found that house sites have been booked/sold out before 06.11.2002 itself date of which, VAO gave certificate mentioned earlier. All these factors got to show that it is non agricultural land and also situated in urban developed area and therefore, it is only capital asset. 27. By order dated 12.7.2019, in TCA.Nos.181 and 183 of 2009, we affirmed said finding and held that land is non agricultural land. In such circumstances, it has to be seen as to whether there is any wilfulness on part of assessee. above finding of fact recorded by Assessing Officer will clearly show that as early as 29.6.2000, there was agreement with third parties for converting land into housing plots by filling sand, levelling, forming roads, carrying out other developmental activities. 28. To be noted, we are concerned with assessment year 2001-02. Therefore, when penalty proceedings were initiated, Assessing Officer was fully justified in holding that assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in revised return. assessee is not individual, but company, which is association of persons consisting of other corporate giants. Therefore, there 19/22 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases is no reason to interfere with factual finding recorded by Assessing Officer stating that assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars. CIT(A) reversed order of Assessing Officer on ground that Assessing Officer proceeded on assumption that assessee was guilty. When correctness of same was examined, in our considered view, Tribunal rightly held that there is wilful concealment. We find that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with common order passed by Tribunal. Since we have already approved finding recorded by Tribunal, which is on re- appreciation of facts, we find that decision in case of Gem Granites will not be of any assistance to case of assessee. 29. In fine, TCA.Nos.181 to 184 of 2009 are disposed of to extent indicated above. TCA.Nos.521 and 522 of 2009 are allowed. TCA.Nos.545 and 546 of 2009 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed. 30. It is relevant to point out that Division Bench of this Court, vide two separate orders dated 24.8.2009 respectively in MP.No.1 of 2009 in TCA. No.545 of 2009 and MP.No.2 of 2009 in TCA. No.546 of 2009, while granting stay, directed assessee to deposit sum of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs respectively without prejudice to their contentions in appeals. It is not known as to whether said amounts were deposited or not. If deposits were already 20/22 TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases made, it is well open to Assessing Officer to make adjustments, if any and proceed further to recover balance amounts and if not, it is well open to Assessing Officer to proceed to recover penalty imposed. 09.8.2019 Internet: Yes RS 21/22 TCA.No.181 of 2009 etc.cases T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-VIII(2), Chennai-6. TCA.Nos.181 to 184, 521, 522, 545 & 546 of 2009 and connected MPs 09.8.2019 22/22 Chemmancherry Estates Company, Chennai v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-VIII(2), Chennai-6
Report Error