DCIT, CHENNAI V. Sanco Trans Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2017/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8033 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'!# , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2017/MDS/2016 # &# /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK, 121, M.G.ROAD, 7 TH FLOOR, CHENNAI 600 034. V. M/S.SANCO TRANS, NEW NO.46, MOORE STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN: AAACS 7690 F ( '( /APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) '( + , /APPELLANT BY : SHRI SASI KUMAR, JCIT )*'(+, /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE - +.$ /DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2016 /0& +.$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) -15, CHENNAI DATED 11.03.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2012- 13. 2 I.T.A. NO.2017/MDS/2016 2. SHRI. SASI KUMAR, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS. UNIT I IS GREATER C ARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT AS COMPARED TO UNIT II. MACHINERIES SUCH AS TATA CR ANE, CRAWLER, EXCAVATORS, ETC. ARE AVAILABLE ONLY IN UNIT-I. ACCO RDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, UNIT I HAS GREATER CAPACITY TO HAND LE THE CARGO THAN UNIT II. THEREFORE, THE TURN OVER SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IN UNIT I IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE AREA OF OPERATION IN DIMEN SION. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR EACH UNIT, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, THE SAME W AS MAINTAINED IN AN ARTIFICIAL MANNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING TAX B ENEFIT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 3 . ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80 IA IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND UNIT O F THE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION WAS EXAMINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND AFTER REFERRING TO THE CIRCULAR ISS UED BY CBDT CIRCULAR 3 I.T.A. NO.2017/MDS/2016 NO.10/2005 DATED 16.12.2005 FOUND THAT THE CONTAINE R FREIGHT STATION FORM PART OF THE PORT, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, ACCORDING TO THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO DOUBT THIS TRIBUNAL EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80 IA IN RESPECT OF THE TWO UNITS OF THE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION AND AFTE R REFERRING TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT NO.10/2005 DATED 16.12.2005, THIS TRIBUNAL FIND THAT THE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION IS THE PART OF T HE PORT THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OR ITS AGENCY. THIS TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION E STABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING AN EXTENDED ARM OF THE PORT IS ELIGI BLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. AFTER REFERRING TO T HE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE GOVERNMENT AND WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CONC ERNED PORT AUTHORITY. THE ISSUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE T URN OVER SHOWN BY THE 4 I.T.A. NO.2017/MDS/2016 ASSESSEE IN CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION AT UNIT I IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE AREA OF ITS OPERATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80IA HAS TO BE A PORTION CO RRESPONDING TO THE AREA OF OPERATION. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE C IT(A) FOUND THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE TWO UNITS CANNOT BE COMPARED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE EACH UN IT CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE AREA OF OPERATION. THE MATTER WOU LD BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTS THE REAL TURNOVER OF EACH UNIT. COMPARING THE TURN OVER WITH AREA OF OPERATION MAY NOT BE CORRECT METHOD. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE TWO UNITS CA NNOT BE COMPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE AREA OF OPERATION. 5. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, THE VERY SAM E ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT UNIT II IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5 I.T.A. NO.2017/MDS/2016 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !'!# ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED, THE 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2016. SP. + ).23 43&. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 5. ( )/CIT(A) 4. - 5. /CIT, 5. 36 ). /DR 6. 7# 8 /GF.