Armstrong Knitting Mills, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Tiruppur

ITA 748/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2688 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ANITA SUMANTH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , '!# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.748/MDS/2014 ' $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 M/S. ARMSTRONG KNITTING MILLS, 61C, SAMINATHAPURAM IIND STREET, ANUPPARPALAYAM POST TIRUPUR 641 652. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1) TIRUPUR. [PAN AAFFA 1226P ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE *+&' ( ) /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.B. KOLI, IRS, JCIT ( , / DATE OF HEARING : 07-01-2016 -.% ( , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-01-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE, IN ITA NO.219/11-12, DT. 30.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-2010 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. ITA NO.748/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONLY ONE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND ON COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISAL LOWING CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF N ON SUBMISSION OF FORM 10CCB. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF HOSIERY GARMENTS MANUFACTURER AND E XPORTER, GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH WIND ENERGY GENER ATOR. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED RETURN ON INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 29 .09.2009 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF :11,01,950/- UNDER NORMA L COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND :7,07,880/- UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC.115J B OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY TH ROUGH CASS AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICE, THE ASSESSEE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIM E ON VARIOUS DATES AND FURNISHED DETAILS AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES AND NO DEDUCTION U/SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED AND ASSESSED TOT AL INCOME AT :27,21,370/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ITA NO.748/MDS/2014. :- 3 -: 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ARGUED THAT THE DEDUCTION 80IA WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND FILED A COPY OF FORM NO.10CCB ALONGWIT H ENCLOSURES. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TH E COMPANY HAS FILED E-RETURN AND WITHOUT ANY REASONS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORDER. AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S.80IA AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT CONSID ERED THE CLAIM U/S.80IA OF THE ACT BASED ON THE FORMS SUBMITTED. T HE LD.CIT(A) ERRED FURTHER ON PRESUMPTION CONCLUDED THAT NO CLAIM WAS MADE EARLIER AND IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE FORM 10C CB ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME AND REJECTED THE DEDUCTION. THE LD. AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCED COPY OF FORM 10CCB BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL AND PLEADED FOR ALLOWING OF THE APPEAL. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OB JECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS AND RELIED ON THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ORDERS AN ARGUED ITA NO.748/MDS/2014. :- 4 -: THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE V ERIFIED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS AND PRAYED F OR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FILING RETURN OF INCOME A ND FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ELE CTRONICALLY THEREFORE PHYSICAL FORM CANNOT BE FILED WITH THE DE PARTMENT ONLINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OVE RLOOKED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS THE STATUTORY FORM WAS FILED BUT THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE FORM AND CONFIRMED THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ORDER. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE COMPANY IS A MANUFACTURING UNIT AND COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS ACTS AND CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF T HE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF THE FORM WERE THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSE E FIRM HAS SIGNED FORM NO. 10CCB AT THE END OF THE PAGE WHICH THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TOOK OBJECTION AND CONSIDERED AS UNSIGNED. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT O N ACCOUNT OF ITS POWERS TO LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS B UT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. THE POWER CONFERRED ON THIS TRIBUNAL, WITH THE INTENTION THAT THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD ITA NO.748/MDS/2014. :- 5 -: DELIVER JUSTICE RATHER LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHNI CALITIES. THEREFORE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WHICH IS OF PRIME IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND TRIV AL TECHNICALITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT FROM T HE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE FORM 10CCB SUBMITTED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS DULY SIGNED. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTS THEREIN NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND ALLOW DED UCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT AFTER VERIFYING THE STATUTORY FORMS FILED I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NEVERTHELESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD B E PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.748/MDS/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JA NUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI / / DATED: 13 .01.2016 KV 0 ( *',23 43%, / COPY TO: 1. &' / APPELLANT 3. 5, () / CIT(A) 5. 389 *',' / DR 2. *+&' / RESPONDENT 4. 5, / CIT 6. 9:$ ; / GF