DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. SICAL Logistics Ltd. (Formerly South India Corporation Ltd.), CHENNAI

MA 131/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4868 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI C BENCH, CHENNAI. (BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE, A.M.) M.A. NO. 131/MDS/2010 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1280/MDS/2006] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE V(1), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD. (FORMERLY SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION (AGENCIES) LTD.), 73, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI 1. [PAN: AAACS3789B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. BY MEANS OF THIS APPLICATION, THE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO GET RECTIFIED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.02.2009 IN I.T.A. NO. 1280/MD S/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO TH E RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80HHC AND 80IB, THIS BENCH HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE B ASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SCM CREATIONS VS. ACIT 304 ITR 319. BUT WHILE DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ABO VE NOTED DECISION, IT HAS OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE LATEST DECISION OF THE SAME COURT IN T HE CASE OF GENERAL OPTICS ASIA LTD. VS. DCIT 315 ITR 400, WHICH WOULD APPLY TO THE INST ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM T HE RECORD AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED FOR PASSING NECESSARY RECTIFICATION ORDER IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY, THE LATER DECISION HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN CITED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APP EAL AND SECONDLY, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SCM CREATIONS VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS FURTHER BEEN DISCUSSED AND FOLLOWED BY M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.131/MDS/10 131/MDS/10 131/MDS/10 131/MDS/10 2 THIS BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 716/MDS/2 008 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DATED 11.02.2009 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S . MRF LIMITED AND SUCH ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT IN THE LATEST DECISION OF CIT VS. M/S. MRF LIMITED ON 27.10.2009 IN TAX CA SE (APPEAL) NO. 1020 OF 2009 AND BY FILING A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE M ADRAS HIGH COURT, IT WAS PLEADED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE SCM CRE ATIONS VS. ACIT DECISION IS BEING FOLLOWED IN NUMBER OF CASES BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, EVEN IN THE LATEST DECISION HAS AFFIRMED TRIBUNALS ORDE R IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ANY MISTAKE. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF CASE LAW CITED BY RIVAL SIDES AND FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE, WHICH DECISION HAS FU RTHER BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. MRF L IMITED (SUPRA), WHICH IS ALSO THE LATEST DECISION AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT ANY MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS SUCH WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION O F THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 03.09.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VM/- DATED :. 03.09.2010. COPY TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.