Ambica Agarbathis Aroma & Industries Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 3330/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7436 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R DURAI

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $ % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3330/MDS./2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S.AMBICA AGARBATHI & AROMO INDUSTRIES LTD ., AMBICA EMPIRE, 17, 100 FEET ROAD, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI 600 026. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI 600 034. PAN AAACA 7483 L ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.R.DURAIPANDIAN,JCIT,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 03 - 2017 , / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1,CHENNAI DATED 07.10.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ITA NO3330/MDS./16 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS F OR OUR CONSIDERATION. 1) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND I N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801A OF RS. 46,70,705/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8 OAC OF THE ACT AND WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED TH AT SECTION 801A IS A SUBSTANTIVE SECTION GRANTING INCENTIVES A ND RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE, AND ONCE THE CONDITION ARE FULFILLED, THE SATISFACTION OF WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 801A CANNOT BE DENIED. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OU GHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT SECTION 8OAC IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL S ECTION AND HENCE CANNOT BE READ IN A MANNER TO DENY THE SUBSTA NTIVE BENEFITS GRANTED BY SECTION 801A. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO DISALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.80-IA OF THE AC T OF 46,70,705/- IN RESPECT OF WINDMILL AT SURANDAI AT TAMILNADU BY INV OKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 80AC. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.5 .2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, IT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR DED UCTION U/S.80-IA IN VIEW OF BELATED FILING OF RETURN. AGGRIEVED WITH T HE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO3330/MDS./16 :- 3 -: 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE LANGUAGE USED OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE PROPER MEANING AN D INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION. THE COURT IS TO ASCRIBE NATURAL AND OR DINARY MEANING TO THE WORDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE COURT OUGHT N OT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN IMPRESSION AND IDEAS IN PLACE OF THE LEGISLATIVE TENT AS IS AVAILABLE FROM A PLAIN READI NG OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBIE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. V. CIT 237 ITR 589 (SC) WHEREIN HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS AN EXPLICIT PROVISION IN THE ACT BEING S.8OAC, T HERE IS NO SCOPE FOR INTERPRETING THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. AS SUCH WHEN THE RETURN BELATEDLY FILED U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EN TITLED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE ACT. LD.CIT(A) RELIED ON THE JUDGE MENT OF KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHELCORN PROERTIES P LT D IN 370 ITR 305 AND THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT, SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S.SAFFIRE GARMENTS VS. ITO IN 140 ITD 6 AND DISMISSED THE GRO UND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENT ITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.80- IA OF THE ACT AS THE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION, AND THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION IS REJECTED, SINCE THE ISSUE IS ALREADY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHELCOM PROPERTIES P LTD. IN 370 ITR 305, W HICH WAS RELIED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ITA NO3330/MDS./16 :- 4 -: ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) . HE NCE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND MARCH, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ! ' # . $ %& ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER () / CHENNAI *+ / DATED: 22 ND MARCH, 2017. K S SUNDARAM +,-- ./-0/ / COPY TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT 3. - 1-!' / CIT(A) 5. /23- 4 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. - 1 / CIT 6. 3&-5 / GF