ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. KCP Sugar and Industries Corpn. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 680/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4523 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K R ADIVARAHAN
• Section: 234B; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: C BENCH;CHENN A (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAN P GEORGE AND SHRI GEORGE MATHA N) ITA NO.680/MDS/2010 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 THE ACIT. VS. M/S KCP SUGAR & INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. CO.CIR.II (4), CHENNAI RAMAKRISHNA BLDG., 2 39 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI-6 PAN AAACK2325F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SRI B. SRINIVAS RESPONDENT BY: :SHRI K.R.ADIVARAHAN ORDER PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT TH E CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT FOR MINIMUM ALTERN ATE TAX (MAT) PAID BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE , THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. (234 CTR 211) WHICH HAD NOT BECOME FINA L, REVENUE HAVING FILED AN SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT. 2 SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE A.O WHILE COMPUTING THE TAX DUE ON ASSESSED INCOME DID NOT GIVE DEDUCTION FOR MAT UNDER SEC. 11 5JAA OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO680/MDS/10 2 CLAIMED SUCH MAT CREDIT AS DEDUCTION FROM THE TAX P AYABLE AND THE REFUND DUE THEREFROM WAS WORKED OUT, AFTER THE CREDIT OF MAT U/S 115JAA. 3. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE WAS SUC CESSFUL. THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT MAT CREDIT RELATING TO EARLIER YEARS HAD TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE A.O. PER CONTRA THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. HELD THE FIELD AS ON DATE. HENCE THERE WAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND HEARD THE PA RTIES. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. (SUPRA). AS PER THE ASSESSEE MAT CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN FIRST ON THE TAX AND THE A.O HAD FAILED TO DO SO. THIS RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL DEDUCTION OF THE REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN CHEMPLAST SANMARS CASE HAD HELD THAT MAT CREDIT U/S 115JAA HAD TO BE GIVE N EVEN BEFORE CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B AND U/S 234C OF THE ACT. IT WAS CLEARLY HELD B Y THEIR LORDSHIPS THAT MAT CREDIT COULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO GIVE SUCH CRE DIT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD., D.R WARRANTING A DIFFERENT ITA NO680/MDS/10 3 VIEW ON THE MATTER. .HENCE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION O F HEARING ON 20-7-2010. SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 20TH JULY, 2010 CC:THE ASSESSEE 2)THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4)THE CIT (A) 4) THE CIT, 5)THE D.R 6)GUARD FILE. NBR