S. U. B. Karalliyadde, J.

This case has been transmitted to this Court in terms of Section 170 of the Inland Revenue Act, No.10 of 2006 seeking for an opinion to the questions of law mentioned in the "case stated" formulated the Tax Appeals Commission established under the Tax Appeals Commission Act, No.23 of 2011.

The Ceylinco Leasing Corporation Ltd, the Appellant is a limited liability Company incorporated in Sri Lanka engaged in the business of leasing, hire purchase and earning rental income. The Appellant submitted its return of income for the year of assessment 2012/2013 and by letter date 23.11.2015, [at page 338 L of the appeal brief.] the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Inland Revenue informed the Appellant that the return of income was rejected for the reason that the Appellant remains the owner of the Staana Vaasi Portfolio despite CLC Asset Management Ltd enjoy the economic benefits accrued on the lease portfolio due to a Participatory Agreement and considering the fact that the Appellant has declared lease rentals arising from Staana Vaasi Portfolio in the VAT Return.

Thereafter, the Notice of Assessment dated 27.11.2015, [at page 338 J of the appeal brief.] was issued to the Appellant.

By letter dated 23.12.2015, the Appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner General of Inland Revenue (the Respondent) against the said assessment. The Respondent made his determination confirming the said assessment and communicated the same to the Appellant by letter dated 15.12.2017., [at page 338 d of the appeal brief.] Being aggrieved by the said determination, the Appellant appealed to the Tax Appeals Commission (the TAC) by the Petition dated 14.03.2018. After hearing the appeal, the TAC confirming the determination made by the Respondent dismissed the appeal and the Appellant was informed the decision of the TAC by the letter dated 08.12.2021., at page 432 of the appeal brief.

Accordingly, with the view of forming an opinion, in terms of Section 170(6) of the Act No.10 of 2006, this Court considered the questions of law raised in the "case stated". The questions of law to which the opinion is sought are as follows:

1. Has the Tax Appeals Commission erred in failing to consider that the Appellant has derecognised its entitlements to the income of the Sthaana Vaasi Financing Portfolio (SVF Portfolio) in accordance with Sri Lanka Accounting Standards as more fully described in Item 1.10.2 if the Accounting Policies of the Financial Statements of the Appellant for the year ended 31^st March 2013?

2. Did the Tax Appeals Commission err in law in failing to consider as to whether there had been a sale as contemplated by law of the income entitlement of the SVF Portfolio from the Appellant to CLC Asset Management (Pvt) Ltd?

3. Did the Tax Appeals Commission err in law in determining that the entitlement to the income of the SVF Portfolio remained with the Appellant for the purpose of determining the profit and income of the Appellant for the year of assessment 2012/2013?

4. Was the Commissioner General of Inland Revenue estopped from determining the appeal against the Appellant on the basis of the determination for the year of assessment 2013/2014 on the identical issue being determined in favour of the Appellant?

5. Has the Tax Appeals Commission erred in law in failing to consider whether any determination which results in the entitlement to the SVF Portfolio remaining with the Appellant would give rise to double taxation on the income since such income was also recognised by CLC Asset Management (Pvt) Ltd?

The questions of law are addressed by this Court as follows.

1. Has the Tax Appeals Commission erred in failing to consider that the Appellant has derecognised its entitlements to the income of the Sthaana Vaasi Financing Portfolio (SVF Portfolio) in accordance with Sri Lanka Accounting Standards as more fully described in Item 1.10.2 of the Accounting Policies of the Financial Statements of the Appellant for the year ended 31^st