DCIT, Tiruppur V. RBR Garments Pvt Ltd., Tiruppur

ITA 1699/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7960 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS H KABILA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ I.T.A.NO.1699/MDS/2016 & C.O. NO. 94/MDS/2016 / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2, SIXTY FEET ROAD, TIRUPUR - 641 602. VS. M/S. RBR GARMENTS PVT. LTD., NO. 284, RAMABIRAN COLONY, DHARAPURAM ROAD, TIRUPUR - 641 608. [PAN: AADCR 0083N] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/ CROSS O BJECTOR) / APPELLANT BY : MRS. H. KABILA, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2016 /O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3 COIMBATORE, FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YE AR PASSED U/S. :-2-: I.T.A.NO.1699/MDS/2016 C.O. NO. 94/MDS/2016 143(3)AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN A FTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'). WE CONSIDER THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN ITA NO . 1699/MDS/2016. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IN RESPECT OF WINDMILLS. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 70 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR HAS FILED AN AFFIDAV IT EXPLAINING THE REASONS THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO FINANCIAL YEAR END O F COMPLETION OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER MARCH 2016, THE A O WAS DEPUTED UNDER ELECTION DUTY. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSION, WE AR E SATISFIED WITH SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDL Y AND WE THEREFORE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 ON 15.10.2010 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 98,68,440/-. THE CASE WAS SELE CTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY DISALLOWING RS. 34,67,1 14/- U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT BY NOTIONALLY BRINGING IN AND SETTING OFF THE BROUG HT FORWARD LOSS FOR DETERMINING THE PROFITS QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IA FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH :-3-: I.T.A.NO.1699/MDS/2016 C.O. NO. 94/MDS/2016 OPERATIONS RELATING TO THE WINDMILL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENCED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VELAYUTHASAMY SPINNING MILLS 231 CTR 368 AN D 340 ITR 477 AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORDER, THE REVENUE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEF ORE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. DR ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND WE FOUND ON PERUS AL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 3 THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE JUD GMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT AND FILED SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) IN THE SUPREME COURT AND SAME IS PENDING. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT MERE PENDENCY OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE APEX COURT CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON ALL THE AUTHORITIES IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND UNION TE RRITORY OF PONDICHERRY. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDG MENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD., (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL :-4-: I.T.A.NO.1699/MDS/2016 C.O. NO. 94/MDS/2016 DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPP ORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORDER. SINCE, THE REVENUE APPEAL IS ADJUDICATED AND DISMISSED. THE CO. NO. 94/MDS/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOS AND DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE APPEAL FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVE MBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( (( ( . ) )) ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2016 JPV /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF