ACIT, CHENNAI V. Texonic Instruments, CHENNAI

ITA 220/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9533 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.220 TO 222/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-9, CHENNAI. VS M/S. TEXONIC INSTRUMENTS, 9, ATHIPATTAN STREET, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002. PAN:AAAFT1650M ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. A.B.KOLI, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. N.DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH APRIL, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 ND MAY, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-10, CHENNAI DATED 27.11.2015 IN ITA NOS.23, 43 & 49/11-12 , 14-15 & 15-16/CIT(A)-10 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT . SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN THESE THREE APPEALS, THEY AR E DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NOS.220 TO 222 /MDS/2016 2. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS, T HE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT . 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AN D ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENTS FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE INITIA L ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE YEAR IN WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMMENCE THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS FOR COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF DEDUC TION. THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER OPINED THAT HE NEED NOT FOLLOW THE SAME BEC AUSE THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX COURT BY WAY OF SLP. 3 ITA NOS.220 TO 222 /MDS/2016 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI VELAYUTHASAMY SPINNING MIL LS REPORTED IN 231 ITR 368 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. 5. 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 ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE REVENUE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT.L TD. CITED SUPRA BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE ISSUE H AS NOT BECOME FINAL. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED 4 ITA NOS.220 TO 222 /MDS/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SRI VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT.LTD. CITED SUPRA HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC TION 80IA OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVE NUE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD (SURPA) IS STA YED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STAY GRANTED BY THE HONBLE APEX COU RT AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBL E MADRAS HIGH COURT, ALL THE LOWER JUDICIARIES AS WELL AS QU ASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SINCE THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT(SUPRA) AND HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THEREFORE WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5 ITA NOS.220 TO 222 /MDS/2016 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 ND MAY, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 2 ND MAY, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF