DCIT, CHENNAI V. Protectron Electromech P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2214/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8145 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ', $ %& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2214/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S PROTECTRON ELECTROMECH PVT. LTD., NO.9, ATHIPATTAN STREET, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 002. PAN : AABCP 1103 B (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 27.01.2016 34) / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3, CHENNA I, DATED 26.08.2015, AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 . 2 I.T.A. NO.2214/MDS/15 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION 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 ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON TH E JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. V. ACIT (2010) 231 CTR 368. 3. SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE JUDGME NT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY FI LED AN SLP. SINCE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX COURT, TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERE PENDENCY OF SLP CANNOT BE A REASON FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIG H COURT. WHEN THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTE RFERE WITH HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFI RMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 3 I.T.A. NO.2214/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( ... ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. KRI. / -278 98)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 :2 () /CIT(A)-3, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI-5, CHENNAI 5. 8; -2 /DR 6. <( = /GF.