DCIT, Coimbatore V. Premier Cotton Textiles, Coimbatore

ITA 160/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9150 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: R VENKATNARAYANAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.160/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-I 63A, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE. VS M/S. PREMIER COTTON TEXTILES, OLD NO.185, 244, ATD STREET, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 018. PAN:AADFP8821H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. R.VENKATNARAYANAN, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 31 ST MARCH, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9 TH JUNE, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 1, COIMBATORE DATED 30.10.2015 IN ITA NO.466/14-15 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIM ITATION OF 3 DAYS. THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPL AINING THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY STATIN G THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS. IT WA S THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 2 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2016 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REVENUE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME. 3. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN A LLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE AC T BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY GENER ATING POWER THROUGH WINDMILL. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF TEXTILE Y ARN FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2011 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 4,58,17,660/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF WINDMILLS AMOUNTING T O ` 6,46,72,226/- BY RELYING IN THE DECISION OF THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI VELAYUTHASAMY SPINNIN G MILLS REPORTED IN 231 ITR 368. SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAS F ILED SLP 3 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT, THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI VELAYUTHASAMY SPINNING MIL LS REPORTED IN 231 ITR 368 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS FOLLOWS:- 4.1 . ON THIS ISSUE THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS HAS ALREADY HELD IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P .LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IS THE A SSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE DEDUCTION OF PROFIT OF UNDERTAKIN G WAS FIRST CLAIM U/S.80IA AND THIS JUDGEMENT IS BINDING ON ALL SUBORDINATE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SO LONG AS IT IS NOT REVERSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IN FACT THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THIS JUDGEMENT IN A NUMBER OF CASES AND DI RECTED TO TREAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ACCORDINGLY. RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OF THE WIND MILL UNIT ACCOR DINGLY AND ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA AF TER NECESSARY VERIFICATION. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER WHILE AS THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE RELIED IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4 ITA NO.160 /MDS/2016 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD FOLLOWED T HE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SRI VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT.LTD., CITED SUPRA AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80I A OF THE ACT AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION, WE DO NOT HAVE AN Y HESITATION TO CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AS THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON ALL THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES UNDER ITS JURISDICTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY CONF IRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 9 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 9 TH JUNE, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF