Chennai Port Trust, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1143/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7981 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENATCHI SUNDARAM

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1143/MDS/2016 $ '$ /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 CHENNAI PORT TRUST, C/O. SUNDARAM & NARAYANAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 18, BALAIAH AVENUE, LUZ CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN : AAALC 0025 B V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI 600 034. ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) () , - / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.MEENATCHI SUNDARAM, C.A. *+(),- /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT . ,/% /DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2016 01' ,/% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) -13, CHENNAI DATED 28.01.2016 AND PERTAINS TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.1143/MDS/2016 2. SHRI K.MEENATCHI SUNDARAM, THE LEARNED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMEN T IN ENNORE PORT LIMITED, SETHUSAMUDRAM CORPORATION LTD. AND CHENNAI ENNORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE BY FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. AN IDENTICAL INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE VERY SAME CASE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 22.07.2 016 FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT NEED NOT BE DISALLOWED SUBJECT TO VERIFI CATION THAT ALL SUCH INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN SISTER CONCERNS / ASSOCIATE CONCERNS / COMPANIES OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 3. WE HEARD SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN T REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESE NTATIVE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPR ESENTATIVE AND THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, AN IDENTIC AL INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE VERY SAME THREE COMPANI ES. THIS TRIBUNAL BY REFERRING TO ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 22.07.2016, FOUND THAT THE 3 I.T.A. NO.1143/MDS/2016 INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN SISTER CONCERNS / ASSOCIATE CONCERNS / COMPANIES OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SUB JECT TO VERIFICATION. BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE A SSESSEES OWN CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN SISTER CONCERNS / ASSOCIATE CONCERNS / COMPANIES OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE ISSUE IS DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! . '#'$ ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SP. , */34 54'/ /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. *+() /RESPONDENT 3. . 6/ ( )/CIT(A) 4. . 6/ /CIT, 5. 47 */ /DR 6. 8$ 9 /GF.