Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
45021714 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
02-06-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
20-05-2015
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
05-03-2015
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.450 /MDS./2015 ( !' #' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE -I 63-A,RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE. VS. M/S.DEFREE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., ., S.F.NO.125/2B,AVINASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 014. PAN AAACD 7943 E ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) $% & ' / APPELLANT BY : MR.N.MADHAVAN, CIT D.R ()$% & ' / RESPONDENT BY : MR.A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE * + & ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2015 .# & ,- /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.06.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-I, COIMBA TORE DATED 29.12.2014 IN ITA NO.433/13-14 PASSED UNDER SEC.14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.450 /MDS/2015 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FIVE ELABORATE GROUNDS I N ITS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE REVENUE I S AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAD ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION US/ 80- IA OF THE ACT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 231 CTR (MAD.) 368 THOUGH THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS PENDING. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN COPPER AND NICKEL ALLOY CASTINGS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 30.09.2011 ADMITTING INCOME OF ` 2,56,37,844/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 07.02.2014 WHEREIN THE LD. A.O DISALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SECTI ON 80-IA OF THE ACT ON WINDMILLS. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION RELAYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE CASE RE NDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VE LAYUDHASWAMY ITA NO.450 /MDS/2015 3 SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 231 CTR (MAD) 368. THE LD. A.O. OPINED THAT SINCE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON. APEX COURT, HE IS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF ` 1,06,26,141/- CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IA OF TH E ACT AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, LD.CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT REPO RTED IN 231 CTR (MAD) 368. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT, O N SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA WAS ALLOWED IN THE APP ELLANTS FAVOUR BY THE CIT(A) IN ITA NO.116/12-13 AND ALSO BY THE HONBLE ITAT NO.1721/MDS./2013 DATED 0013. 6. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE A.O HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD V S. ACIT REPORTED ITA NO.450 /MDS/2015 4 IN 231 CTR (MAD) 368 [2010] THE AO IS DIRECTED TO A LLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT THIS DECISION OUT OF ABUNDAN T CAUTION, BECAUSE THE REVENUE HAS CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE HONB LE APEX COURT AND THE MATTER WAS PENDING. THE LD. A.R. ON THE O THER HAND, RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE REVENUE WAS ON APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS H IGH COURT IN THE CASE VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT, HE NEED NOT FOLLOW THAT DECISION. HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT MERE PENDENCY OF THE SLP BEFORE THE APEX COURT IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT. FURTHER, IT IS ITA NO.450 /MDS/2015 5 NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF TH E HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD (SURPA) IS STAYED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENT ION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STAY GRANTED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AGAIN ST THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, ALL THE LOWER JUDICIARIES AS WELL AS QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO FOLL OW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SINCE THE LD.CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS H IGH COURT(SUPRA) AND HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER . THEREFORE WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. LD. CIT (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2 ND JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( . '#$ %' ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 2 ND JUNE, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. & (,/0 1 0#, /COPY TO: 1. $% /APPELLANT 2. ()$% /RESPONDENT 3. * 2, ( ) /CIT(A) 4. * 2, /CIT 5. 05 (,6! /DR 6. 7' 8+ /GF
