ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. TVS Finance and Services Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 961/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61234 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G NANTHAKUMAR
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.961/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(2), CHENNAI. V. M/S. TVS FINANCE AND SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HARITA FINANCE LTD. WHICH WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS TVS LAKSHMI CREDIT LTD.) JAYALAKSHMI ESTATES, 29 (OLD NO. 8), HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI- 600 006. PAN : AAACH60 41B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. NANTHAKUMAR, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 05.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.0 7.2012 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 IS A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-XII, C HENNAI, DATED 31-01-2012. ITA.961 /MDS/2012 2 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE AO INI TIALLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 35D OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) IN THE AS SESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE U/S 35D WAS DISALLOWED. 2. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER : DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N U/S 35D FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS, BEING 110 TH OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IN ALL THE EARLIER 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE CLA IM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35D WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND DISALLAOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35D IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y. 1997-98), WHICH IS TH E SEVENTH YEAR OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 35D. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT A SIMILAR DEDUCT ION U/S 35D WAS CLAIMED FOR A.Y. 19980-99 ALSO, BEING THE 8 TH YEAR, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING ITA.961 /MDS/2012 3 OFFICER. ON APPEAL THE ITAT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 35D. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IN THE A.YS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 (BEING 9 TH AND 10 TH YEARS RESPECTIVELY) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S 35D OF THE ACT. IN THESE YEARS THE ASSESSEES CLAI M OF DEDUCTION U/S 35D WAS ALLOWED, IN THE ORDERS U/S 143(1) AND 143(3) RESPECTIVELY, IN THE A.YS 1999- 2000 AND 2000-01. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. SINCE TH E ITAT, IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 1735/MDS/2004 DATED 22.12.2010 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 35D OF THE ACT. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE CLAIM WAS 1/10 TH OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CONTINUING FROM THE EARLIER YEARS, AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE SAME ISSUE, I AM O F THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUC TION U/S 35D OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAI M. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN ITS APPEALS. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVE NUE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNE D DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, ITA.961 /MDS/2012 4 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESS EE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 35D OR NOT. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U /S 35D WAS ALLOWED EARLIER FOR SIX YEARS BUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 35D FOR THE SEVENTH YEAR, I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 -98, WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND EVEN THE CLAIM FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ALSO WAS DISALLOWED. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1735/M DS/2004 DATED 22-12-2010, THE TRIBUNAL HELD IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 35D OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ALLOW ED THE DEDUCTION U/S 35D. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 3 5D WAS ALLOWED FOR THE EARLIER SIX YEARS AND SUBSEQUENT PE RIODS AND ONLY FOR THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS THE AO HAS DENIED THE SAME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA.961 /MDS/2012 5 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-0 7- 2012. SD/- SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ( V.DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 05 TH JULY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE