ACIT, CHENNAI V. Textile for Homes, CHENNAI

ITA 1533/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8759 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Services rendered outside India

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! ,% !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1533/MDS/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE -15, CHENNAI 600 034. V. M/S.TEXTILE FOR HOMES, NO.7, MURPHY STREET, SEA CLIFF ENCLAVE, AKKARAI, CHENNAI 600 119. PAN : AAFFT5744B (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT -.+,/0 / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 1 /2% / DATE OF HEARING : 11.08.2016 3') /2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) -15, CHENNAI DATED 04.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. NO.1533/MDS/2016 2. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRE SENTATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APP EAL ON MERIT. SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEP ARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID EXPORT COMMISSION UNDER SECT ION 40(A)(IA) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.31,43,645/- WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE TAX. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M.M.FORGINGS LTD. IN ITA NO.2679/MDS/2014 DATED 19.06.2015. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.M.FORGINGS CITED SUPRA AND THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT . THEREFORE, TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE AP PEAL. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE PAID EXPORT COMMISSION FOR THE AGENTS WHO OPERATES OUTSIDE INDIA AND RENDER SERVICE OUTSIDE INDIA. THE CIT(A) F URTHER FOUND THAT 3 I.T.A. NO.1533/MDS/2016 THE FOREIGN AGENTS PROCURED THE ORDERS FROM FOREIGN BUYERS AND FOLLOW UP FOR THE PAYMENTS DUE FROM THEM. THE CIT(A) FURTHE R FOUND THAT PROCURING ORDERS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EITHER RENDER ING TECHNICAL SERVICE OR CONSULTANCY SERVICE. THEREFORE, BY PLACIN G RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F M.M.FORGINGS LTD. CITED SUPRA, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE. NOW, THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.M.FORGINGS LTD. CITED SUPRA . THEREFORE, JUST TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE, THE APPEAL IS FILED BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IS BINDING ALL OFFICERS OF THE DEPA RTMENT IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND PONDICHERRY. MERE PENDENCY OF THE APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT CAN NOT BE A REASON FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOT T HE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M .M.FORGINGS WAS STAYED BY THE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY PLACED HIS RELI ANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M.M.FORGINGS LTD. AND ALLOWED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFI RMED. 4 I.T.A. NO.1533/MDS/2016 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2016. SP. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 92 /CIT, 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.