DCIT, Madurai V. Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd., Sivakasi

ITA 5/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9771 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.5/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 MADURAI VS. M/S STANDARD FIREWORKS (P) LTD 1/3 THIRUTHANGAL ROAD SIVAKASI 626123 [PAN AACCS 1480 M ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 02 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 - 04 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-1, MADURAI, DATED 13.10.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 . 2. SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IS DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE WINDMILL. THE CI T(A), BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ITA NO. 5/16 :- 2 -: VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD VS ACIT, 340 I TR 477, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D R, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY FILED SLP BEFORE THE APEX COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD.(SUPRA) AND THE MATTER IS PENDING FOR ADJUDI CATION. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE, THE REVENUE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HEARD SHRI S.SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, MERE PENDENCY OF SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT A GROUND TO TAKE A DIFFERENT V IEW. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD (SUPRA) IS BIN DING ON ALL AUTHORITIES IN THE STATE OF TAMILNADU. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DR, T HE CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD(SUPRA) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON ALL AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THIS TRIBUN AL. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX ITA NO. 5/16 :- 3 -: COURT CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE APEX COURT STAYED OPERATION OF THE JUDGMEN T OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING M ILLS P. LTD.(SUPRA). IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) HA S RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHAS WAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD(SUPRA) AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST APRIL, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 1 ST APRIL, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF