The Madras High Court held that Section 263 revisionary powers cannot be exercised by misclassifying a demerger as an amalgamation. A Division Bench dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the ITAT ruling in Tax Case Appeal No. 602 of 2013.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has determined that the Income Tax Department cannot leverage its revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a mistaken classification of a demerger as an amalgamation.
The judgment, delivered in Tax Case Appeal No. 602 of 2013 by a bench consisting of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice Mummneni Sudheer Kumar, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against a ruling from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
This ruling emphasizes the stringent limits of revisionary authority and the crucial differentiation between amalgamation and demerger under the Act, thwarting what the court termed as “mere roving enquiries” by tax officials.
Also Read: India’s New Income Tax Rules Effective From April 1, 2026: Full Breakdown for Taxpayers
Background of the Case
The conflict traces back to the Assessment Year 2007-08 and involves M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd (the assessee/respondent), a Coimbatore based apparel exporter. The assessee filed its income tax return, which the Assessing Officer processed into a regular assessment order dated December 18, 2009.
This assessment permitted the carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business losses and depreciation from three predecessor entities namely M/s Cotton Base Clothing India Private Limited, M/s Tangible Textiles Private Limited, and Essorpe Mill Limited.
The dispute concerns tax benefits arising from court-approved demerger schemes involving Eastman Exports, sanctioned by the Madras High Court in 2008 and 2009. These schemes, clearly classified as demergers under Section 2(19AA) of the Income Tax Act, allowed the carry-forward of losses under Section 72A(4). In 2012, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, issued a show cause notice wrongly treating the transactions as amalgamations and invoking Section 72A(2), which imposes stricter conditions.
Despite the assessee clarifying the correct legal position, the CIT passed a revision order under Section 263. This was challenged before the ITAT, which set aside the revision, holding that it stemmed from a fundamental misclassification and exceeded the scope of the notice. The Revenue’s subsequent appeal under Section 260A raised questions on jurisdiction and error.
Arguments advanced:
The Revenue argued that the ITAT wrongly allowed the assessee’s appeal, contending that the Commissioner’s revision under Section 263 was justified due to inadequate scrutiny of loss carry-forward claims, causing prejudice to revenue. It asserted that the transactions were effectively amalgamations, attracting Section 72A(2), as the demerged units were absorbed into the assessee’s business and lacked the required three-year operational history.
Relying on Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Revenue claimed both error and prejudice were established and further argued that the ITAT improperly limited the Commissioner’s revisional powers to the show-cause notice.
In contrast, the assessee maintained that the High Court-sanctioned schemes were unequivocally demergers under Section 2(19AA), governed by Section 72A(4), which permits loss carry-forward without restrictive conditions.
It argued that the Commissioner ignored relevant material, conducted an impermissible roving enquiry, and exceeded jurisdiction, while the Tribunal rightly upheld the assessment.
Analysis of the Court:
The Madras High Court’s rationale centered around a detailed examination of the requirements under Section 263, heavily referencing the Supreme Court’s clarification in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT ([2000] 243 ITR 83).
The apex court established that a revision requires the concurrent fulfillment of two conditions:
- The contested order must be erroneous in law or fact,
- It must result in prejudice to revenue interests.
The bench applied this standard rigorously, concluding that neither condition was met. The assessment order of December 18, 2009, was not erroneous as it rightly did not consider the demerger schemes filed after the assessment without any indication of bad faith or oversight by the Assessing Officer.
It noted that amalgamation under Section 2(1B) involves a complete merger where the transferor company ceases to exist, justifying safeguards under Section 72A(2), including the three year operational requirement to prevent misuse of losses. However, the transactions in question were demergers under Section 2(19AA), involving only a transfer of specific undertakings while the demerged entities continued to operate.
Accordingly, Section 72A(4) applied, permitting carry-forward of losses attributable to the transferred undertakings without the restrictive conditions governing amalgamations. The Court criticised the Commissioner of Income Tax for ignoring the assessee’s detailed reply and court-sanctioned schemes, instead ordering a vague re-examination amounting to a fishing enquiry.
Upholding the Tribunal’s decision, the Court ruled that the Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by mischaracterising the transaction and that, in the absence of any assessment error, no prejudice to revenue was established.
Observations of the Court:
The observed that:
- “Hence, the arrangement sanctioned qua the parties is not one of amalgamation as defined under Section 2(1B) of the Act, but one of demerger per under Section 2(19AA) of the Act. That is the fundamental error committed by the CIT that has been pointed out by the assessee in its reply to the notice u/s 263 of the Act.“
- “On a comparison of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 72A extracted supra, we find that there is no condition under sub-section (4) of Section 72A as unlike in sub-Section (2) of Section 72A.”
- “It was thus incumbent upon the CIT to have identified the ‘error’ in the order of assessment prior to directing intervention by the assessing officer. Alternatively, and assuming that he still harboured a doubt in regard to the arrangement qua the parties, he ought to have articulated those doubts in the order u/s 263 instead of which the matter was simply placed before the assessing officer for enquiry.”
- “In light of the language of Section 72A and the absence of a condition under sub-section (4) thereof, there does not appear to be any error per se in order of assessment dated 18.12.2009 and the direction under order dated 27.03.2012 u/s 263 of the Act amounts to a mere roving enquiry.”
- “Section 263 provides for suo motu revision by the CIT upon satisfaction of two concurrent conditions, that the order sought to be revised is both erroneous and prejudiced to the interests of the revenue. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court has held that the twin conditions under Section 263 have to be satisfied concurrently.”
Final Order Of the Court
The Madras High Court decisively dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, resolving all significant questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, without imposing any costs.
The ruling upholds the ITAT’s November 22, 2012, verdict, nullifying the CIT’s March 27, 2012, revision and reinstating the original assessment’s treatment of carry-forwards under Section 72A(4).
Case Title: Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore. Vs M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd.,
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
