Tom Thomas vs Commissioner of Income Tax

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The question raised is whether the rectification order issued u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act confirmed by the Tribunal is tenable or not. In the assessment for the year 1992-93 the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act even though assessee has sustained loss in business. The Assessing Officer however, computed the relief u/s 80HHC. However, the Assessing Officer noticed that the deduction allowed in respect of total income from other sources, house property and share income from firm is not correct. Therefore he rectified the assessment u/s 154 which was subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority. Even though first appeal is allowed, the Tribunal on second appeal reversed the same by following the judgment of this Court in KIL KOTAGIRI TEA AND COFFEE ESTATES CO. LTD. Vs. Income Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS., . Before us, counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Geo Miller and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, . However, standing counsel pointed out that the issue on merits itself stands decided against the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, wherein the Supreme Court held that if the net result of business is loss, assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. Since the issue on merits is decided against the assessee, we do not propose to go into the technical argument raised that rectification order is not tenable. Consequently we dismiss the appeal.