TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al goods. 3. Petitioner entered into a scheme of arrangement with Hind Lamps Limited ("Hind Lamps") which was an unlisted company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Glass bulbs, High Intensity Discharge bulbs etc. Hind Lamps also has a trading business in India. Prior to the effective date of the scheme of arrangement, in 2002, Hind Lamps was declared as a sick industrial company within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ("SICA") by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR"). The Board of Directors of Petitioner and Hind Lamps at their respective board meetings decided to demerge the manufacturing business of Hind Lamps into Petitioner with cut off date of 31st March 2014. Since Hind Lamps was declared as a sick industrial company by BIFR, the scheme of arrangement was required to be filed only with BIFR for its approval. The scheme was filed with BIFR on 22nd April 2016. By a notification dated 25th November 2016 the Central Government brought the provisions of SICA Repeal Act into force with effect from 1st December 2016, thereby repealing SICA. Section 4(b) of SICA Repeal Act provided that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turns to claim advance tax or withholding tax refunds and credits giving effect to the demerger. The scheme of arrangement also provided that all profit / income earned or accrued and expenses / losses incurred by the manufacturing undertaking of Hind Lamps for the period between the appointed date and the effective date shall be deemed to be treated as the profits / income earned or accrued and expenses / losses incurred by Petitioner. Further, the taxes deducted / tax paid in relation to the income of the demerged undertaking of Hind Lamps shall also belong to Petitioner. The scheme of arrangement provided that the accounting treatment for tax purposes will be incorporated in the books and in the financials drawn up which shall be approved by the board of directors of Petitioner and Hind Lamps and furnished to the authorities after audit. The drawn-up financials was to be furnished along with returns / filings to be made with the tax authorities and was to form the basis of tax assessments and tax compliances. 6. As per the scheme of demerger and as per the directions of the NCLT, both petitioner and Hind Lamps have prepared the special purpose financial statements and obtaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r revised income-tax returns for AY 2017-18 to AY 2020-21 were under preparation and would be filed soon. Petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 to take the revised income-tax returns for AY 2014-15 to AY 2016-17 on record and process them at the earliest. 9. Petitioner filed another letter dated February 3, 2022 with Respondent No. 1 for filing of revised returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20. Petitioner filed (i) revised computation of total income; (ii) notes to computation of total income; (iii) revised special purpose purpose financial statements; (iv) revised Form 3CB and Form 3CD and; (v) revised Income-tax returns for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 and requested Respondent No. 1 to take the revised income-tax returns for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 on record and process them at the earliest. 10. Petitioner filed another letter dated February 24, 2022 with Respondent No. 1 for filing of revised return of income for AY 2020-21. Petitioner filed (i) revised computation of total income; (ii) notes to computation of total income; (iii) revised special purpose financial statements; (iv) revised Form 3CB and Form 3CD and; (v) revised Income- tax return for AY 2020-21 and requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since the amount of refund claimed exceeded Rs.50 lakhs. Respondent no. 1 referred to board's instructions. Respondent no. 1 accepted that the Apex Court judgment in the case of Dalmia Power Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Trichy-(2019) 112 taxmann.com 252 (SC) was applicable but according to Respondent no. 1 he was bound by CBDT instructions. In the impugned order, Respondent no. 1 states as under: "Without resorting to such procedure by placing the reliance on the Apex Court has filed the application before the undersigned. It is important to mention here that the undersinged has not been authorized to accept the manual returns relating to the company as such returns have to be filed 'electronically', whose control vests with the Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore under the administrative control of Principal Director General of Income-tax) System) or Director General of Income-tax (System). Therefore, the undersigned has no role in accepting such manual returns. Though the Apex Court decided the issue against the Department, however, considering the Board's Instruction No. 9 of 2015 and section 119(2)(b) of the Act the undersigned has left....