M/s. AIRLINE FINANCIAL SUPPORT SERVICES (I) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5931/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7921 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2006
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VANDAN; S S RANAS K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: FORIZE B ANDHYARUJINA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 5931/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 ITA. NO. 5932/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ITA. NO. 5933/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 M/S. AIRLINE FINANCIAL SUPPORT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 21 PAN AAACA-0944-Q VS. ITO 3 (1) (1) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI FORIZE B. ANDHYARUJINA FOR RESPONDENT : S/SHRI S.S. RANA/S.K. SINGH AND MR S. VANDANA SAGAR (D.R.) ORDER PER SHRI D. MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. THESE THREE APPEALS, FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18-3- 2004 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XXVII, MUMBAI. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVE D IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL OF THESE APPEALS ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGE D IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROCESSING, DOCUMENTING AND RECORDING REVENUE ACCOU NTS OF SWISSAIR AND OTHER AIRLINES. IT WAS INCORPORATED IN MARCH 19 92 AND LOCATED IN SEEPZ, MUMBAI. IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS U NDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 10A OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT IN THE EVENT OF NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 10A, THE ASSESSEE 2 SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE OF THE ACT. LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, VIS --VIS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, BUT, AS REG ARDS THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80HHE, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE. APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 250 HAVING BEEN DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US. 3. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT IN THE ORDER DATED 14-2- 2003 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 10A HAVING BEEN REJECTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, APP EALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ITAT AND THOSE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY ITAT , B BENCH, MUMBAI IN A COMBINED ORDER DATED 16 TH APRIL, 2009 WHEREIN THE BENCH ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT AS SESSEE-COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE BACKDROP OF THESE FACTS, THE LEARNED COU NSEL, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT HE CANNOT CLAIM A DOUBLE DEDUCTION BY WAY OF MAKING A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80HHE ALSO, IN ADDITION TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, NEVERTHELESS HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS A STRON G CASE EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HH E AND STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER DESERVES TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM, THOUGH AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE, SINCE THERE CAN NOT BE ANY CERTAINITY WITH REGARD TO FINALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT VIS--VIS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IN THE EV ENT OF A CONTRARY 3 DECISION BY A HIGHER FORUM IN ASSESSES OWN CASE IF THE DEPARTMENT PREFERS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16 TH APRIL, 2009. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN ON MERITS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE OF THE ACT AND THUS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT IN THE ORDER CITED (SUPRA), DISCUSSION ON THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM AT THIS JUNCTURE WOULD MERELY BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE WHICH IS NOT WARRANTED. WE THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE OF ACADEMIC NATURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE IS AT LIBERTY, AS DECLARED IN THE OPEN COURT, TO SEEK APPROPRIATE LEG AL REMEDY BY WAY OF FILING M.A. OR OTHERWISE TO BRING BACK TO LIFE THE IMPUGNED APPEALS, IF PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, ON THIS THE 0 4 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (TR SOOD) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. VBP/- 4 COPY TO 1. M/S. AIRLINE FINANCIAL SUPPORT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 8 TH FLOOR, NIRMAL BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 21 PAN AAACA-0944-Q 2. ITO 3 (1) (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI. 4. CIT(A)-XXVII, MUMBAI. 5 CIT, CITY-III, MUMBAI 6. D.R. B BENCH, MUMBAI. 7. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.