ACIT, Kollam V. Smt. Preetha S. Nair, Kollam

ITA 672/COCH/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4363 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2008
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR BABU JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T V HARIHARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COC HIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY ARORA , AM I.T.A. NO. 672/COCH./ 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM. VS. SMT. PREETHA S. NAIR, NUT PRODUCTS COMPANY, KOCHUPILAMOODU, KOLLAM [PAN: ABDPN 1379H] (REVENUE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY DR. BABU JOSEPH, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.V.HARIHARAN, CA O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 11.2.2008 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) UNDER REFERENCE IS 1999-2000. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, EVEN AS PR OJECTED PER FOUR GROUNDS, IS THE DIRECTION BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING THE ASSESS EES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (THE 'ACT' HEREINAFTER) I N RESPECT OF ITS FACTORIES RUNNING FROM RENTED PREMISES. THE LD. CIT(A), IN SO DIRECTING T HE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.), FOLLOWED THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1997-98 IN I.T.A. NO. 131/COCH/2001 DATED 11.2.2003, A COPY OF WHICH IS O N RECORD. 3.1 THE LD. DR, ARGUING THE REVENUES CASE, WOULD S UBMIT THAT THE AO, IN NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S. 80IA, HAD VALID REASONS TO DO SO. FIRSTLY, THE REVENUE HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID TRIBUNALS DECISION, I.E. , IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR. SECONDLY, THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HAD ONLY BASED ITS DECISION ON AN EARLIER DECISION BY IT IN THE CASE OF R. PRATAP, KOLLAM VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM (IN I.T.A. NO. 290/COCH/1998 FOR A.Y. 1994-95 DATE D ITA. NO. 672/COCH./2008 2 6.3.2002). HOWEVER, THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF R. PRATAP (SUPRA) WERE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OBTAINING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE STANDS COVERED BY THE TRIBUNALS DE CISION IN THE CASE OF R. PRATAP (SUPRA), AS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ASSESSE ES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1997-98. 3.2 THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD SUBMIT THA T THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER; THE TRIBUNAL HAVING I N FACT DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THE SAME GROUND FOR EVEN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDI NG YEAR, I.E., A.Y. 1998-99 (IN I.T.A. NO.709/COCH/2007 DATED 27.8.2008), PLACING A COPY OF THE SAME ON RECORD, HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IS ALLOWABLE EVEN FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN FOR OTHERS THROUGH JOB WORK, AS BEING A SETTLED PROPOSITION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NORTHERN AROMATIC LTD ., 196 CTR (DEL.). FURTHER, THE CONVERSION OF RAW CASHEWNUTS INTO KERNELS IS A MANU FACTURING ACTIVITY, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR , 100 STC 571 (SC) AND CIT VS. INDIAN RESINS AND POLYMERS (1999) 235 ITR 5 (KER.); THE LATTER HOLDING THE RES PONDENT-ASSESSEE AS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80HH AND 80J OF THE ACT, AND WHICH H AS ATTAINED FINALITY WITH THE SLP MOVED AGAINST IT BY THE REVENUE HAVING BEEN DISMISS ED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 THE PRIMARY ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE A SSESSEES CASE STANDS COVERED BY THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ITS CASE FOR A.Y. 1997-98, S INCE FOLLOWED BY IT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, I.E., AY 1998-99. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF T HE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 5. A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.PRATAP, KOLLAM VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM, IN I.T.A. NO. 290/COCH/98 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 94-95, DATED 6.3.2002. RELYING ON THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO . 763/COCH/95 DATED 18.10.1999 AND IN I.T.A. NO. 410/COCH/96 DATED 27.3.2001 AND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA VS. INDIAN RES INS AND POLYMERS REPORTED IN 235 ITR 5, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE RELIEF U/S. 80HH AND 80I OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEING SIMILAR, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF RELIEF AVAILABLE U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT, IN THIS CASE. THER EFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO COMPUTE THE QUANTUM OF THE DEDUCTION AND GIVE THE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, AS CLAIMED BY HER. THIS POINT, IS, THEREFORE, DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA. NO. 672/COCH./2008 3 THE REVENUES CONTENTION THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF R. PRATAP (SUPRA) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WO ULD NOT HOLD AS THE SAID FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS ASSUMED FINALITY. AS ALSO EXPLAINED B Y THE BENCH DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE REVENUE, IF OF THE VIEW THE SAID FINDI NG BY THE TRIBUNAL IS INFIRM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, OUGHT TO HAVE CHALLENGED THE SAID ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL EITHER IN APPEAL OR IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS, AS CONSIDERED PROP ER BY IT. IN ITS ABSENCE, IT IS NOT OPEN FOR IT TO QUESTION ITS FINDINGS IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDIN GS. 4.2 THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE, I.E., OF H AVING CHALLENGED THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IS, FIRSTLY, NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY MA TERIAL AND, SECONDLY, IS BY ITSELF OF NO MOMENT; RATHER, THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR WOULD STAND TO BE GOVERNED BY THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT AS IN THE CASE OF ARCH DIOCESE OF VARAPOLY V. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR ., 233 ITR 228 (KER.), EXHORTING THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENTS KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, BEING A CO GENT PIECE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SAME, AS AFORESAID, STANDS FOLLOWED FOR T HE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS WELL. 4.3 WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., ON MERITS, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DWELL THEREON, HAVI NG ONCE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE AS COVERED BY THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ITS CASE F OR A.Y. 1997-98. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1997-98, TO WHICH NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURE ST ANDS BROUGHT OUT BY THE REVENUE, DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 1.6. 2010 GJ ITA. NO. 672/COCH./2008 4 COPY TO: 1. SMT. PREETHA S.NAIR, NUT PRODUCTS COMPANY, KOCHU PILAMMODDU, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLLAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R./I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR)