DDIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI V. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD AS AGENT OF CREDIT LYONNAIS, MUMBAI

ITA 3169/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3544 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RUPINDER BRAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH LAKHAR

Judgement Text

, . . !' #$%& , !' () ! BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 3169/MUM/2012 ( * * * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 THE ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2), 119, SCINDIA HOUSE, BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI-400 038 / VS. M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., AS AGENT OF CREDIT LYONNAIS, 3 RD FLOOR, MAKER CHAMBERS IV, 222, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 )+ !' ./ ,- ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAACR 5055K ( +. /APPELLANT ) .. ( /0+. / RESPONDENT ) +. 1 ! / APPELLANT BY: MRS. RUPINDER BRAR /0+. 2 1 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI FARROKH V. IRANI & SHRI RAJESH LAKHAR 2 3' / DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2013 45* 2 3' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.05.2013 (!6 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI DT. 8.2.2012 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING TWO EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THAT ON WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPROVAL FOR EXEMPTION BECAUSE OF NON ITA NO. 3169/MUM/2012 2 FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE BEC AME INELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10(15)(IV)(F) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN IGNORING THE S TATUTORY PROPOSITION THAT FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(15) (IV)(F), THE APPROVAL BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS SINE-QUA-NON FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS WELL SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCE DED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE APPEAL RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3.4 & 4 AT PAGES 5 & 6 WHICH IS AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE ISSUE OF INTEREST PAYMENT TO VARIOUS INVESTORS IN RESPECT OF ECB LOANS/NOTES TAKEN THROUGH VARIOUS ECB/NOTES APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNME NT OF INDIA, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE HONBL E ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 516/M /02 ORDER DT. 8.2.2005. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ANOTHER DECISION IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IN ITA NO . 5966, 5967 & 5968 ORDER DT. 23.3.2006 AS WELL AS IN ITA NO. 5407 & 5408/M/07 DT. 15.4.2009 AND ITA NO. 901/M/08 ORDER DT. 29.9.0 9. THE AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT AFTER DISCUSSING THE W HOLE MATTER HAS HELD THAT THE APPROVAL GRANTED U/S. 10(15)(IV)( F) CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE WITHDRAWAL LE TTER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIO NS OF THE I.T. ACT. HONBLE ITAT ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT EXEMPTION ONCE GRANTED ITA NO. 3169/MUM/2012 3 U/S. 10(15)(IV)(F) CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN. FURTHER ON CE THE PARTIES TAKING LOAN HAVE ACTED ON SUCH EXEMPTION AND ARRANG ED THEIR AFFAIRS ACCORDINGLY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT WITH DRAW EXEMPTION TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THEM. THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BEING IDENTICAL, RELIEF SHOULD BE AL LOWED TO IT. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQU ARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 516/MUM/2012, 5966/M/02, 5407/ M/07 & 901/M/08. WE FIND THAT IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE T RIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH DECISIONS HAV E BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O TAMPER WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.5.2013 . (!6 2 5* '! 7 8( 9 28.5.2013 5 2 : SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA ) (N.K . BILLAIYA ) /PRESIDENT !' () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 8( DATED 28 /05 /2013 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 3169/MUM/2012 4 (!6 (!6 (!6 (!6 2 22 2 /3# /3# /3# /3# ;!#*3 ;!#*3 ;!#*3 ;!#*3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0+. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. < ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. < / CIT 5. #=: /3 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. : > / GUARD FILE. (!6 (!6 (!6 (!6 / BY ORDER, 0#3 /3 //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ? / @ @ @ @ , , , , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI