ACIT, Coimbatore V. M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 1482/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57895 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1482/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(2), 63-A, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE. VS. M/S. BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LIMITED, 1212, TRICHY ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018. [PAN: AAACB8933G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2012 ORDER PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) I, COIMBATORE DATED 29.06.2011 PASSED IN APP EAL NO.166/10-11 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, A DVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I S THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA IN RESPECT OF THE THREE UNITS SEPARATELY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1482 1482 1482 1482/ // /M/ M/M/ M/11 1111 11 2 AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS THREE IN DEPENDENT INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS FOR GENERATING POWER. THE THREE UNDERT AKINGS HAVE THREE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS UNRELATED TO ONE ANOTHER AND SEPARATE APPROVALS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ELECTRICITY DEPART MENT ON DIFFERENT DATES. IN THE CASE OF THE THREE UNDERTAKINGS, THE P OWER IS PERMANENTLY SUPPLIED TO STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDS ON WHOM INVOIC ES ARE RAISED ON MONTHLY BASIS AND PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED FROM ELECTR ICITY BOARDS. THE WIND MILL DIVISION COMMENCES ITS COMMERCIAL PRODUCT ION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS C LUBBED ALL THE WIND MILL UNDERTAKINGS AND TAKING THE LOSS INTO CONSIDER ATION, CALCULATED 80IA DEDUCTION. IT IS NOTE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS D ECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.1162/MDS/2008 FOR A.Y.2004- 05, ITA NO.423/MDS/09 FOR A.Y.2005-06, ITA NO.1196/MDS/09 F OR A.Y. 2006-07 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT FOLLOWING THE HON'BLE ITAT DECISION FOR EARLIER YEARS. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO NEW FACTS OR CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SINCE THE ISSUE IS S QUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF T HE APPELLANT, I ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T. A. NO.1162/MDS/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, I.T.A. NO.423/MDS/09 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06, I.T.A. NO.1196/MDS/09 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AND I.T.A. NO. 160/MDS/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE LD. D R COULD NOT FILE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE SAID ORDE RS OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE REVERSED IN APPEAL BY ANY HIGHER FORUM. HENCE, WE D O NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1482 1482 1482 1482/ // /M/ M/M/ M/11 1111 11 3 JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER. IT IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. NO OTHER POINT HAS BEEN URGED BY THE REVENUE EX CEPT THE ABOVE POINT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 06.02.2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 06.02.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.