DCIT, CHENNAI V. Shriniwasa Roadways Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 575/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9257 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYARAGHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ' #, % &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.574/MDS/2016 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S SAMBHA PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD., 152, PETERS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 034. PAN : AAACS 6646 R (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAYARAGHAVAN, JCIT ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ./ ITA NO.575/MDS/2016 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S SHRINIWASA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD., NO.122, WALL TAX ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 003. PAN : AAACS 5063 N (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAYARAGHAVAN, JCIT ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 17.05.2016 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.05.2016 2 I.T.A. NO.574 & 575/MDS/16 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 15, CHENNAI, IN RESPECT OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY T HIS COMMON ORDER. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.575/MDS/2016 EVEN THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. SHRI JAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION I S WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APP EALS) IN BOTH THE APPEALS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES BY FOLLO WING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPI NNING MILLS (P) LTD. V. ACIT (340 ITR 477). ACCORDING TO THE L D. D.R., THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APEX COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., 3 I.T.A. NO.574 & 575/MDS/16 THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEES. 4. WE HEARD SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.574/MDS/2016 ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AN D THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS), BY F OLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPI NNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEES UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. THE ONLY CLAIM OF THE RE VENUE IS THAT AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT. RECENTLY, THE CBDT HAS ISSUED A CIRCULAR ACCEPTING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELA YUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND INSTRUCTED ALL ITS OFFICERS NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WH EREVER THE 4 I.T.A. NO.574 & 575/MDS/16 JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IS FOLLOWED. THE CIR CULAR OF THE CBDT IS BINDING ON ALL THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTME NT AND THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IS ALSO BINDING ON TH E OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ON THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THIS T RIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH MAY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( ... ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 26 TH MAY, 2016. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENTS 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-15, CHENNAI-34 4. 2 ;3 /CIT-6, CHENNAI-34 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.