The Dy. CIT., Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Vishal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 8/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4491 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.S. SHUKLA
• Keywords: Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

, ‘A’ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 08/Ahd/2019 ( Assess ment Ye ar : 2014-15) D. C.I . T. Cir cl e- 4( 1)( 2) , Ah me dab ad / V s . M / s. Vi sh al F ab ri c s P vt . Lt d. B/ h. Ka sh ir a m M il Co mp ou nd , Ra ni pu r, Nar ol , Ah me da ba d यी ल सं./ ीआ आर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A A A C V 6 3 0 4 R (अपील Appellant) . . ( य / Respondent) अपील र स /Appellant by : Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. य क र स / Respondent by : Sh ri Ga ur av N ah ta, A. R. स क र D a t e o f H e a r i n g 08/02/2022 !"# क र /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 18/04/2022 ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-8/11130/16-17dated 03.10.2018 arising in the assessment order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2014-15. ITA No. 8/Ahd/2019 [DCIT vs. M/s. Vishal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. The solitary ground has been taken by the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s.80Ia of the Act on account of profit from sale of steam of Rs.2,81,35,809/-. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of processing, manufacturing and trading of cloths. In this case, the learned AO disallowed a sum of Rs.2,81,35,809/-being profit earned on sale of steam while calculating deduction under S.80IA of the Act. The learned AO held that no deduction under S.80IA of the Act was admissible on sale of steam which was used for consumption in other unit. The learned AO accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs.2,81,35,809/-. 4. Against the said order, the assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the learned CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in the assessment year 2012-13, learned predecessor CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of her order in A.Y. 2011-12 which was upheld by the co-ordinate bench. 5. Now, Revenue is before us by way of second statutory appeal. 6. At the outset, leaned AR argued that matter is squarely covered by the order of co-ordinate bench for A.Y. 2011-12 in assessee’s own case with following observations: “7. We have also gone through the assessment order in details in that there is a finding of the AO in Page No.9 Para ii, wherein she has stated that 80IA(4) is an allowable deduction on steam and there is no dispute on it, steam has already been held to be power within the meaning of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. When on one hand AO herself is accepting that steam is eligible for deduction and on the other hand she is disallowing the deduction, it itself is contradictory, when once the AO is of the opinion that deduction is available on steam then no disallowance should have been made only on assumptions basis. The assessee has submitted several ITA No. 8/Ahd/2019 [DCIT vs. M/s. Vishal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 - decisions in support of its contention and same are stated therein, the steam was transferred at a higher price. Further assessee has submitted engineer certificate at Page No.10 of Paper Book in which also the cost of generation of steam can be considered in the range of Rs.1.16/- to 1.24/- per kg of steam. Further the saving in cost due to Captive production also cannot be ruled out which has been elaborated discussed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. We therefore, relying on various decision in support of the claim made by the assessee and acceptance by the AO that steam is a form of power and eligible for deduction and for the basis of deduction relying on the engineers certificate as well different case laws held. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and profit margin kept by the assessee in Captive consumption is fair and reasonable. In our considered opinion on the basis of consistency and ld. CIT(A) has passed a detailed and reasoned order. We upheld the order of ld. CIT(A).” Since, in similar facts and circumstances, CIT(A) as well as ITAT had been given relief to the assessee, therefore on the principle of consistency, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- ( WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACC OUNTANT MEMB ER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 18/04/2022 True Copy S.K.SINHA ेश ! " #े" / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- $. र / Revenue 2. आ दक / Assessee '. सं(ं)* आयकर आय + / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय + - अपील / CIT (A) .. / 0 1ीय 2 2 )*3 आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. 1 78 9 ल / Guard file. By order/आद श स 3 उप/स4 यक पं ीक र आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द । This Order pronounced in Open Court on 18/04/2022