DCIT, CHENNAI V. Precision Equipments (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2049/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8187 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2049/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S PRECISION EQUIPMENTS (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD., NO.26, MOUNT POONAMALLEE ROAD, NANDAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 089. PAN : AABCP 3452 H (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2016 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.10.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, CHENN AI, DATED 22.03.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. NO.2049/MDS/16 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISAL LOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80- IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT ON THE GROU ND THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. V. ACIT (340 ITR 477). ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT AN SLP IS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX COURT, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A PPEALS) OUGHT NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE AC T ON THE GROUND THAT AN SLP IS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX COURT AGAINS T THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MIL LS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE CBDT IN ITS LATEST CIRCULAR INSTRUCTE D ALL ITS OFFICERS NOT TO CONTEST THE MATTER WHEREVER THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MIL LS (P) LTD. 3 I.T.A. NO.2049/MDS/16 (SUPRA). IN FACT, THE CBDT INSTRUCTED ITS OFFICERS TO WITHDRAW ALL THE APPEALS PENDING ON THE SUBJECT. INSPITE OF THIS IN STRUCTION, THIS APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERE PENDENCY OF SPECIAL LE AVE PETITION BEFORE THE APEX COURT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR NOT FO LLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IT IS NOBOD YS CASE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS STAYED BY THE APE X COURT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 28 TH OCTOBER, 2016. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO.2049/MDS/16 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-3, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI-5, CHENNAI 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.