Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0730-4]

Citation 2020-LL-0730-4
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/07/2020
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags mercantile system of accounting • contract business • retention money • question of law
Bot Summary: For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar ORDER The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences. Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Revenue and Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Assessee. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant/Revenue submitted that the Assessee's own case for the previous Assessment Year 2008-2009 has been decided in favour of the Assessee by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in T.C.A.No. The Commissioner of Income Tax laying emphasis on the decision of this Court in Ignifluid Boilers Ltd., case, allowed the appeal of the assessee and the department's appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed holding that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal and therefore there was no reason to differ with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax. 4879 of 2006 against the decision of this Court in Ignifluid Boilers Ltd., case was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 17.7.2006. Since the issue raised in this appeal had already been decided against the department by the Supreme Court in C.C.No. Respectfully following the said view of the co- ordinate Bench, we dismiss the present Appeal of the Department and answer the questions in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.


Order dt 30.7.2020 in TCA 693 of 2019 CIT v . Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd. IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.7.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.693 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Appellant vs M/s.Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd., 153, Developed Plots, Electrical & Electronics Industrial Estate, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench dated 12.9.2013 in I.T.A.No.1424/Mds/2013. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar ORDER (Made by Dr.Vineet Kothari,J) Court was held by Video Conference, as per Resolution of Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and counsel, staff of Court appearing from their respective residences. http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt 30.7.2020 in TCA 693 of 2019 CIT v . Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2. This Tax Case has been filed by Revenue, calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D Bench dated 12.9.2013 in I.T.A.No.1424/Mds/2013, for Assessment Year 2009-10, by raising following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in tne facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that retention money of Rs.3,94,28,431/- on contract cannot be included in Assesee's income for AY.2009-10? (ii) is not Tribunal wrong in holding that retention amounts cannot be considered as income of Assessee because such amounts were still to be received, when Assessee follows Mercantile System of Accounting and income is to be assessed on "accrual basis"? (iii) Is not Tribunal wrong in not considering fact that in so far as retention amounts are concerned, income has "accrued" to Assessee herein by virtue of work done in AY.2009-10 and it is only payment of same that has been postponed and therefore retention amounts form part of income of Assessee for http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt 30.7.2020 in TCA 693 of 2019 CIT v . Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd. AY.2009-10?" 3. Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Appellant/Revenue and Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent/Assessee. 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for Appellant/Revenue submitted that Assessee's own case for previous Assessment Year 2008-2009 has been decided in favour of Assessee by co-ordinate Bench of this court in T.C.A.No.513 of 2014 on 25.11.2014. 5. short order passed by co-ordinate Bench is quoted below for ready reference:- " respondent-assessee is engaged in contract business and in memo of income, it had claimed deduction of amounts retained by its clients as per contracts. According to assessee, as amounts were not received, they cannot be considered as part of income for impugned assessment year. original authority, while considering decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd., [(2006) 283 ITR 295)], was of view that since issue was pending before Supreme Court and that such claim is of http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt 30.7.2020 in TCA 693 of 2019 CIT v . Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd. recurring nature, declined to extend benefit to assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, laying emphasis on decision of this Court in Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd., case (supra), allowed appeal of assessee and department's appeal before Tribunal was dismissed holding that decision of jurisdictional High Court is binding on Tribunal and therefore there was no reason to differ with findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). said order of Tribunal is under challenge before us. 2. When matter was taken up for admission, learned counsel for appellant fairly pointed out that Special Leave Petition preferred by department in C.C.No.4879 of 2006 against decision of this Court in Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd., case was dismissed by Supreme Court by order dated 17.7.2006. 3. Since issue raised in this appeal had already been decided against department by Supreme Court in C.C.No.4879 of 2006 dated 17.7.2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ignified Boilers India Ltd.) and in C.C.No.9463 of 2006 dated 12.12.2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. East Coast Constructions & http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt 30.7.2020 in TCA 693 of 2019 CIT v . Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd. Industries Limited), no question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, tax case appeal is dismissed." 6. controversy involved in present Appeal is covered by said Judgment. Respectfully following said view of co- ordinate Bench, we dismiss present Appeal of Department and answer questions in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. No order as to costs. (V.K.J.) (K.R.,J.) 30.7.2020 ssk. Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt 30.7.2020 in TCA 693 of 2019 CIT v . Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd. Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. ssk. T.C.A.No.693 of 2019 30.7.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd
Report Error