ITO, Pondicherry V. M/s. Sri Moogambigai Fasteners, Pondicherry

ITA 436/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51845 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: E SANKAR
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 436/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), PONDICHERRY. V. M/S. SRI MOOGAMBIGAI FASTENERS, NO, 91/6-B, KOODAPAKKAM, VILLIANUR COMMUNE PANCHAYAT, PONDICHERRY-605 110. PAN :AAUFS8817R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI E. SANKAR, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 14-09 -2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-09-2011 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-XII, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 164/09-10 DATE D 16-12-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SHRI E. SANKAR, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE AND NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.436/MDS/2011 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ISSU E WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (T HE ACT FOR SHORT). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO-OPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80-IB FOR EARLIER YEARS THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 8 0-IB FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT CONSIDERED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH T HE OTHER CONDITIONS FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB SUCH AS WHETHER THE YE AR IN APPEAL FELL WITHIN THE BLOCK ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 80-IB, THE ASSESSEE COULD BE GRANTED THE DEDUCTION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE RETURN FOR THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD BEEN FILED ON 26-10-2007. VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEE N GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO CO-OPERATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE I.T.A. NO.436/MDS/2011 3 DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB JUST BECAUSE DEDUCTION U/S 80-I B HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, BEING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IB OF THE A CT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB IS RESTRICTED FOR A PERIOD OF T EN YEARS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CLEARLY DO NOT SHOW AS TO WHICH WAS THE INITIAL YEAR FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND WE DO SO. IN THE CIRCUM STANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16/09/2 011. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE