ACIT, CHENNAI V. Chettinad Morimura Semiconductor Materials Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

ITA 50/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90465 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K B MURALIDHARAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . , ! '# $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.50/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE I(3) CHENNAI VS. M/S CHETTINAD MORIMURA SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS PVT. LTD NO.37 OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD KHAZHIPATTUR VILLAGE, PADUR POST KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT 603 103 [PAN AAACC 2461 Q] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.B.MURALIDHARAN, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 01-06-2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-06-2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, DAT ED 30.9.2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E REVENUE RELATES TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF ITA NO.50/15 :- 2 -: DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT QUA THE OPTION OF TH E ASSESSEE IN CHOOSING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF HIGH QUALITY PURIFIED SILICA POWER A ND GENERATION OF WINDMILL ENERGY. IT HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 3,53,88,240/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT FOR A SUM OF ` 1,17,32,275/-. AS PER FORM 10CCB FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, IT HAS COMMENCED BUSINESS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING WIN DMILL FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM WHICH THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER THRUST ON THE AS SESSEE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE PROCESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES AWAY THE OPTIO N AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUTE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON T HE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. VS ACIT, 340 ITR 477. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OU R ATTENTION TO PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE C IT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH ITA NO.50/15 :- 3 -: COURTS JUDGMENT(SUPRA) ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. THE RE VENUE RAISED GROUND NO.2.2 IN THIS REGARD WHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE DEPARTMENT FILED AN SLP BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT. OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ADJUDICATED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND EXAMINING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, SINCE RELI ED ON THE BINDING JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OF JUNE, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 12 TH JUNE, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF