, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1985/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, TIRUPUR. V. M/S SAKTHI MURUGAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED, 19/2, PUDUPALAYAM, COIMBATORE MAIN ROAD, AVINASHI 641 654. PAN : AADCS 0673 H (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.1988/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE I, 63-A, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE. V. M/S INDO SHELL CAST PVT. LTD. NO.A-14, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KURICHI, COIMBATORE 641 021. PAN : AAACI 4299 N (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANTS BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENTS BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 28.12.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2016 2 I.T.A. NO.1985/MDS/15 I.T.A. NO.1988/MDS/15 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF TWO D IFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMM ON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. DR. B. NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDG MENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. V. ACIT (2010) (231 CTR 368). THE ONLY OBJECTION OF T HE REVENUE IS THAT IT HAS ALREADY FILED A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). 3 I.T.A. NO.1985/MDS/15 I.T.A. NO.1988/MDS/15 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER R EJECTED THE SAME. THE CIT(APPEALS), BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADR AS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPI NNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE BEFO RE US. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE LD. D.R. IS THAT AN SLP IS PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERE PENDENCY OF SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CANNO T BE A REASON NOT TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS NOT ONLY BINDING ON THIS TRIBUNAL BUT ALSO BINDING ON BOTH T HE PARTIES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIG HTLY FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN VELAYU DHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS T RIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE CIT( APPEALS) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE CONFIRMED. 4 I.T.A. NO.1985/MDS/15 I.T.A. NO.1988/MDS/15 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 1 ST JANUARY, 2016. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANTS 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENTS 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-3 & 1, COIMBATORE 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3 & 1, COIMBATORE 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.