Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, V. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, Pune

ITA 2864/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5891 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH KADE
• Keywords: Appeal by revenue against matter already decided by Tribunal
• Section: 143(3); 80IA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO. 2864 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 1 3 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14, PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, 583/B, MARKET YARD, GULTEKDI, PUNE 411037 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AABCM3988M / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MAHESH KADE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SARVESH KHANDELWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 10 . 0 1 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT: 11 . 0 2 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A) - 7 , PUNE , DATED 30 . 0 9 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 2 - 1 3 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT) . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 01. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE I T ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.79,43,510/ - . 02. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CONTAINER CORPORAT ION OF INDIA LTD. VS ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 140 (DELHI) WHICH IS MISPLACED. ITA NO. 2864 /P U N/20 1 6 MAH. STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. 2 03. FOR THE FACTS AND SUCH OTHER REASONS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF (APPEALS), PUNE MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. 4. THE ONLY IS SUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT AT 79,43,510/ - . 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING AND HAD SET UP INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT (ICD) AND CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION (CFS) FOR HA NDLING B ONDED WAREHOUS E ON THE LEASEHOLD LAND OF SIDCO IN THE VICINITY OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH A CERTIFIC ATE FROM THE CONCERNED PORT AUTHORITIES CERTIFYING THAT THE STRUCTURE AT THE PORT FOR STORAGE, LOADING AND UNLOADING ETC. FORM ED PART OF PORT. 7. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND THEREAFTER ALSO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO.820/PN/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 09.05.2016, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF IN ITA NO.1014/PUN/2015, R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2017. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL ARE AT PAGES 3 TO 7 UNDER PARAS 6 AND 7 OF THE ORDER DATED ITA NO. 2864 /P U N/20 1 6 MAH. STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. 3 28.07.2017, IN WHICH FINDINGS OF EARLIER ORDER OF TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVI TY, WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL, TO WHICH REFERENCE IS BEING MADE BY US. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN TURN, RELYING ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 09.05.2016 FOR EARLIER YEAR. 8. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 11 TH FEBRUARY , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS F ORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 7 , PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CI T , PUNE - 6 , PUNE ; 5. 6. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE