(B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 14552/2019), decided on July 6, 2023
Tejpal Chaudhary _______________________________ Appellant;
v.
Commissioner of Income Tax and Another _________ Respondent(s).
With
Civil Appeal No. of 2023
(@ SLP (C) No. 18902/2019)
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 14552/2019) and Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 18902/2019)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein have assailed the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the respective appeals filed by the respective Assessees, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the context of availability of exemption to the appellants herein having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Classic Binding Industries (2018) 9 SCC 753.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that essentially the controversy was, as to, whether, the Assessees were entitled to 100% exemption and this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla v. Aarham Softronics (2020) 11 SCC 551 has held that the judgment in Classic Binding Industries case had omitted to take note of the definition of “Initial Assessment Year” contained in Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 itself and had instead based its conclusion on the definition contained in Section 80-IB, which did not apply to the case at all. In that view of the matter, this Court held that 100% exemption is permissible in paragraphs 27.3 and 27.4 of the aforesaid judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) therefore, submitted that having regard to the latest dictum of this Court being applicable to the instant appeals, the appeals may be disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
5. Learned panel counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue did not dispute the proposition of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment. She, therefore, submitted that appropriate order may be made in these cases.
6. We find that the judgment referred to above, squarely applies to the case at hand and therefore, the High Court, which has stated that the substantial questions of law were answered against the Assessees and in favour of the Revenue on the basis of Classic Binding Industries case, will have to be now set aside. Consequently, the Assessees succeed and are entitled to 100% exemption.
7. In this regard, it is relevant to notice that in the case of Tejpal Chaudhary, the Assessing Officer has clearly held that the Assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 80-IC but to the extent of 25% only which is now held to be 100%. The finding that the Assessee was entitled to deduction has attained finality. In so far as the case of M/s. Friends Alloys is concerned, the Revenue has conceded to the fact that the said Assessee is entitled to exemption.
8. The Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
———
