DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Arkay Leathers (P) Limited, CHENNAI

MA 125/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6880 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: R KUMAR
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment
• Section: 80HHC; 234B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M. A. NO. 125/MDS/2011 (IN ITA NO. 212/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR :2003-04 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(1), CHENNAI. V. M/S. ARKAY LEATHERS (P) LTD., 106, G.S.T. ROAD, CHROMPET, CHENNAI-600 044. (PAN : AAACA3053E) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REV ENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.212/MDS/2010 DATED 14-10-20 10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPR ESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. M.A. NO. 125/MDS/2011 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED JR. STANDING COU NSEL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAD SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT WAS NOT BEING LEVIED ON THE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROFITS ON THE SALE OF DEPB CREDITS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT APPR ECIATED THE FACT WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL WAS LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT WHAT WAS BEING ASKED FOR BY THE REVENUE IS A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD T HAT THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS NOT AN ISSUE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN VISUALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMENDMENT BY THE TAXATIO N LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE ISSUE WHICH WA S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN DECIDED. NO ERROR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN REGARD T O THE FINDING AS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL, IT SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND, B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL HAS ONLY CONFIRMED THE FINDING AS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES, AS NO MISTAKE M.A. NO. 125/MDS/2011 3 APPARENT FROM THE RECORD HAS BEEN SHOWN FROM THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12/08/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 12 TH AUGUST, 2011. H. COPY TO: APPLICANT/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE