IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 20.04.2009 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Tax Case (Appeal)No.1028 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore Appellant v. M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Ltd., 252, Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore – 641 043. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 9.2.2007 passed in ITA No.3360/Mds/2004 for the assessment year 2000-2001 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)I, Coimbatore dt.8.10.2004 made in Appeal No.17/2003-04 against the order of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle 1(2) Coimbatore dated 17.2.2003,made in PAN-GIR No.AAACB 8513B/B-10, for the assessment year 2000-01. For appellant : Mr.J.Nareshkumar, Standing Counsel for Income-tax. For Respondent: Mr.Venkatanarayanan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 9.2.2007 passed in ITA No.3360/Mds/2004 for the assessment year 2000-2001. 2. The material facts culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The assessee, which is a company engaged in the manufacture of yarn filed its return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 on 29.11.2000 declaring a total income of Rs.1,99,83,610/-. The assessing officer included sales tax and excise duty as form part of the total turn over in computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Ac;t. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who excluded the excise duty and sales tax from the total turn over. Against that order, the Department preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Wheels India Limited reported in 275 ITR 319 dismissed the Departmental appeals. The assessing officer has given credit for the brought forward MAT credit after calculating interest under Section 234B and 234C. On appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chemplast Sanmar, 83 TTJ 427 directed the brought forward MAT credit available is to be treated at par with advance tax and TDS and the assessing officer shall calculate the interest under Section 234B and 234C after giving credit for the brought forward MAT credit. The income-tax Appellate Tribunal uphold the order of the first Appellate Authority and dismissed the departmental appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred the present appeal by formulating the following questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sales tax and excise duty collections would not form part of the turn over for the purpose of reckoning the quantum of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question of payment of interest to the assessee would arise only if set off MAT credit is allowed against the advance tax payment and it should be treated on par with the advance-tax? 3. The appeal was admitted on the second question of law alone, as the first question of law is covered by the decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. SUDNARAM CLAYTON LTD., (281 ITR 425), which was confirmed by the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF ICNOME-TAX VS. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS (290 ITR 667). 4. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 5. The identical issue as that of the second question of law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ involved in this appeal has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on 09.04.2009 and was answered against the revenue, wherein it was held thus:- "18. In the present case, the intention of the legislature is to give tax credit to tax and not to the tax and interest. Once the intention is clear, the revenue cannot rely on the Form-I to say that the MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be given only after tax and interest. Further we have answered the first question of law in favour of the assessee i.e. the MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be given effect to before charging the interest under Section 234B and 234C. Rule 12 (1)(a) and Form-I cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, we answer the questions 2 and 3 also in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue. 6. As the second question of law involved in this case is identical to the one considered by the Division Bench, following the Division Bench Judgment stated supra, the appeal is dismissed since the question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar usk To 1.The Asst.Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle 1 (2) Coimbatore. 5.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.J.Naresh Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel for Income Tax Sr 15709 JP(CO) km/29.4. T.C.(A)No.1028 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/