DCIT, Coimbatore V. Chettinad Lignite Transport Services Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

ITA 1151/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81130 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURGESH SUMROTT

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1151/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(1), COIMBATORE-641 018. VS M/S. CHETTINAD LIGNITE TRANSPORT SERVICES PVT.LTD. 43, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE-18. PAN: AABCC7357G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.DURGESH SUMROTT, CIT DR /RESPONDENT BY : MR. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD JULY, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 TH AUGUST, 2014 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD , JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBAT ORE DATED 19.2.1014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. T HE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY EXECUTED WORKS CONTR ACT ON BEHALF OF OTHER COMPANY AND ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONLY A SUB-CONTRACTOR EXECUTING CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF OTHE RS, THEREFORE SQUARELY COVERED UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SUB- 2 ITA NO.1151/MDS/2014 SECTION 13 OF SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT AND THUS INE LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-10 BY VARIOUS ORDE RS WHICH ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 1 TO 50. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRI BUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEA RS. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN IT A NO.1762/MDS/2012 DATED 21.11.2012 FOR THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 2009-10, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER 3 ITA NO.1151/MDS/2014 CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SAID ORDE R AND THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE OBSERVING AS UN DER:- 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL READ AS BELOW : 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IS AGAINST THE LAW, AS EXPLANATION TO SUB- SECTION(13) OF SECTION 80-IA STATES THAT :- FOR REMOVAL DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A PERSON WHO EXECUTES A WORKS CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR M/S. SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LIMITED WHICH IS THE CONTRA CTOR FOR M/S. STCMS ELECTRIC COMPANY PVT. LTD. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE EXPLANA TION OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2007. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXECUTED A WORKS CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF OTHER COMPAN Y. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ONLY A SUB-CONTRACTOR EXECUTING A CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF OTHERS AND WAS SQUARELY COVERED UNDER THE ABOVE EXPLANATION AND TH US INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA. 5. THE LEARNED THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE ALSO DOES NOT SATISFY ALL THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATE D IN SUB-SECTION(4) OF SECTION 80-IA. 3. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ALL THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 2003-04 TO 2008-09. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE 4 ITA NO.1151/MDS/2014 ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER OF ITS CLAIM MADE UNDER SEC.80-IA. THE CASE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED EVEN AFTER EXPLANATION TO SUB-SEC. (13) OF SEC.80-IA WAS INSERTED. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 4. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY, T HE 13 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) . ( ' )* ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / , JUDICIAL MEMBER/ ) , ) /CHENNAI, - /DATED, 13 TH AUGUST, 2014 SOMU /0 10 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 6 /DR 6. /GF .