, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI , . ! , ' !# $ [ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO. 2272/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I TUTICORIN VS. M/S DIAMOND SHIPPING AGENCIES PVT. LTD A-4, DIAMOND HOUSE WORD TRADE AVENUE HARBOUR ESTATE TUTICORIN 628 004 [PAN AAACD 6487 H ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V SREEKANTH, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 02 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 0 2 - 2016 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI, DA TED 29.9.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.2272/15 :- 2 -: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING HE DISALLOWAN CE MADE U/S 80IA(4) OF THE I.T ACT WHEN ONE OF THE CONDITIO NS FOR ALLOWING THE ABOVE DEDUCTION I.E THE CERTIFICATE IS SUED BY THE CONCERNED PORT AUTHORITIES HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.L. LOGISTICS PVT . LTD DATED 23.12.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLP HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE SUPREME COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS A.L. LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., 374 ITR 609, WHEREIN HELD AS FOLLOWS: AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE DECIS ION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 346 ITR 140 (DEL), CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION IS HELD TO BE FALLING WITHIN THE CUSTOMS AREA ATTACHED TO THE POR T. AS THE WORK RELATING TO CUSTOMS IS PERFORMED AT THESE INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS/CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS, IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I ) EXPLANATION (D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PLEA OF MR.T.RAVIKUMAR, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE THAT ANY OTHER PUBLIC FACILITY ON SIMIL AR NATURE HAS BEEN OMITTED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002 W ILL NOT MAKE THE CASE ANY DIFFERENT IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WHICH HOLDS THAT C SF IS PART OF AN INLAND PORT AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EXCLUSION OF CSF IN CLAUSE (D) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I). THEREFORE, ON FACT WHEN IT HAS ITA NO.2272/15 :- 3 -: BEEN FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT CSF IS AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO DIFFER ON FACT. WE RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH THE DELHI HIGH COURT. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CONTAINER FREIG HT STATION DEVELOPED AND OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTE AN INLAND PORT WHICH IS DEFINED AS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY U/S 80 IA(4) AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4 ) OF THE ACT. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !' / CHENNAI #$ / DATED: 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 RD $%&& '(&)( / COPY TO: & 1 . / APPELLANT 4. & * / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. (+,& - / DR 3. & *&./ / CIT(A) 6. ,0&1 / GF