ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Teledata Marine Solutions Limited (Formerly M/s.Sirus Shipping Company Ltd.), CHENNAI

ITA 95/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4854 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) .. I.T.A. NO. 95/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(3), CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) V. M/S TELEDATA MARINE SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S SIRIUS SHIPPING COMPANY LTD.), TELEDATA TOWER, NO.37/1, VELACHERRY TAMBARAM MAIN RD., VELACHERRY, CHENNAI 600 034. PAN : AABCS0621H (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED AN ADDITION OF ` 86.60 LAKHS MADE BY THE A.O. DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 33 AC OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). AS PER THE REVENU E, THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR DECI DING THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, HAD NOT BECOME FINAL. I.T.A. NO. 95/MDS/11 2 2. THOUGH ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED AN AD JOURNMENT APPLICATION, THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED SINCE NO AUTHO RIZATION IS ON RECORD. 3. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD FOLLOWED THE D ECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2001-02 AND 2002-03. RELEVANT PA RAS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 7. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT VIDE THE FOLLOWING ORDERS, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AS UND ER:- ORDER OF ITA NO. DATE ASST. YEAR DECISION CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI 87/2006-07 18.6.2007 2002-03 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ITAT, CHENNAI C BENCH 2322/MDS/07 30.05.2008 2002-03 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ITAT, CHENNAI C BENCH 704/MDS/2007 01.02.2008 2001-02 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ITAT, CHENNAI C BENCH 162/MDS/2001 28.05.2004 1997-98 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ITAT, CHENNAI B BENCH 1043, 1044 & 1733(MDS)/1999 25.04.2001 1995-96 & 1996-97 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE 8. IT IS PERTINENT TO REPRODEUCE 11.13 OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI B BENCH IN ITA NOS.1043, 1044 & 1773(MDS) /1999 DATED 25.04.2001 AS UNDER: 11.13 IN A NUTSHELL ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTA LITY OF THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY I N THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND OF THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS DISCU SSED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 33AC, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE THE OWNER OF THE SHILP AT THE THRESHOLD I.T.A. NO. 95/MDS/11 3 LEVEL ITSELF EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE SHIP WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 33AC(2)(B), THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 33AC. IN THIS CAS E ON HAND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 33AC(2)(B) WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DENY THE AS SESSEE THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 33AC ONLY ON THE RE ASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OWNING A SHIP AT THE THRESHOLD LEV EL, WHICH IS NOT A PRE-CONDITION FOR ALLOWING THIS DEDUCTION, AS ALREA DY OBSERVED BY US. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEE IS TO LOSE THE EXEMPTION IT IS ONLY AFTER THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACQUIRING A NEW SHIP AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THIS SECTION. IN THIS C ASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BOUGHT A NEW SHIP WITHIN THE S PECIFIED PERIOD OF EIGHT YEAR, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DENY THE ASSESS EE THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 33AC. HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALLOW THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1044(MDS )/1999 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 IS ALLOWED. 13. FOR THE SAME REASONINGS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 (I.T.A. NO. 1733(MDS)/1999) IS ALSO ALLOWED. THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1043(MDS)/1999 AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)S ORDER REFUSING TO RECTIFY UNDER SECTION 154 HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN I.T.A. NO. 1 044(MDS)/1999 ABOVE. . 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NO. 1044(MD S)/1999 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND 1733(MDS)/1999 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. N O. 1043(MDS)/1999 FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 3. IT IS OBVIOUSLY CLEAR THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD FAITHFULLY FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILIT Y UNDER SECTION 33AC OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED A ND ALLOWED BY I.T.A. NO. 95/MDS/11 4 THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS, NOTHING WAS BROU GHT ON RECORD BY LEARNED D.R. FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERITS IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH JUNE, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE