ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 259/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61048 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RANGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 259/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (APPELLANT) V. M/S VOLTECH PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NO.153, DEVELOPED PLOTS, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS INDL.ESTATE, PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI - 600 096. PAN : AABCV9425E (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RANGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCA TE DATE OF HEARING : 02.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.05.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANC E IS THAT THE RETENTION AMOUNT ON CONTRACT ` 3,93,59,310/- ADDED BY THE A.O. WAS DELETED BY CIT(APPEALS). I.T.A. NO. 259/MDS/12 2 2. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CONTRACT BUSINESS AND IN ITS MEMO OF INCOME, IT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR MONEY RETAINED BY ITS CLIENTS AS PER THE CONTRACTS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SUCH AMOUN TS WERE STILL TO BE RECEIVED AND HENCE, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V. IGNIFLUID BOILERS (P) LTD. (283 ITR 295). HOWEVER, THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD NOT REACHED FINALITY, AND SUCH ISSUE BEING A RECURRING ONE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) WAS SUCCESSF UL. ACCORDING TO CIT(APPEALS), ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED I N RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN IG NIFLUID BOILERS (P) LTD.S CASE (SUPRA) AND FURTHER, EVEN FOR EARLIER Y EARS, SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. 4. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE D ECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IG NIFLUID BOILERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, BUT AN SLP HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE HONBLE APEX COURT. I.T.A. NO. 259/MDS/12 3 5. PER CONTRA, A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IGNIFLUID BOILERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) STOOD DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IGNIFLUID BOILERS (P) LTD. (SU PRA) OR, IN OTHER WORDS, REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE US ONLY TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE IN VIEW OF ITS PENDING SLP BEFORE HON BLE APEX COURT. IN OUR VIEW, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SLP HAS BEEN FILE D BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OR NOT, THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED IN LETTER AND SPIRIT BY AL L THE AUTHORITIES BELOW UNLESS A CONTRARY DECISION IS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT OR A STAY HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE REVENUE. JUST BECAUS E AN SLP IS PENDING BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IT WILL NOT B E CORRECT NOT TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF RETENTION AMOUNTS. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 259/MDS/12 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 2 ND MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 2 ND MAY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI (4) CIT, CHENNAI-I, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE