ITO, Namakkal V. No. 4288, Nanjai Edayar PACS Ltd., Namakkal

ITA 948/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 94821714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.948/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 NAMAKKAL VS. M/S NO.4288, NANJAI EDAYAR PACS LTD NANJAI EDAYAR PO P. VELUR TALUK NAMAKKAL 638 182 [PAN AAAAN 2265 R ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 10 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 10 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, D ATED 29.1.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ITA NO948/15 :- 2 -: 3. DR. B. NISCHAL, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS U/S 80P(2)(I ) AND U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S SL(SPL) 151 KARKUDALPATTY PACCS LTD VS ITO IN I.T.A.NO. 292/MDS/2014 DATED 17.3.2014 AND IN THE S ALEM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD VS ITO IN I.T.A.NOS.730, 731 & 732/MDS/2014, DATED 30.6.2014, ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE ACT. 4. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERVIC E OF NOTICE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, AFTER HE ARING THE LD. DR, WE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AN D ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CIT(A), BY FOL LOWING THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S SL(SPL) 151 KARKUDALPATTY PACC S LTD(SUPRA) AND THE SALEM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKE TING SOCIETY LTD.(SUPRA), ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE EARLIER BENCH THIS TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF TH E HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT VS KANGRA CO-OPERATIVE BA NK LTD[2009] 309 ITR 106. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR IS THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ITA NO948/15 :- 3 -: ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT U/S 260A OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT MERE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRI BUNAL CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. SINCE THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY EXAMINED THE IDENTICAL FACTS A ND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND FOR THE REASONS STATED T HEREIN, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF