Nirma Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

MA 98/AHD/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1998 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MA NO AHD
• Assessee Lawyers: IN IN

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. MA NO.61/AHD/2020 (BY REVENUE) 2. MA NO.98/AHD/2020 (BY ASSESSEE) (IN ./IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006) [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01] 1.THE ACIT CENT.CIR-1(1) AHMEDABAD 2. NIRMA LIMITED AHMEDABAD / VS. 1. NIRMA LIMITED NIRMA HOUSE ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 2. THE DCIT CENT.CIRCLE-3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACN 5351 J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI HIMANSHU C.SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI L.P. JAIN, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 04/12/2020 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/12/2020 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT CROSS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE BEING DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE PO INTING OUT A COMMON APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 1 1/09/2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006 FOR AY 2000-01. MA NOS.61 & 98/AHD/2020 (IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006) ACIT VS. NIRMA LIMITED(CROSS) ASS T.YEAR 2000-01 - 2 - 2. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.13,64,48,850/- ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRIK AMPURA DIVISION. THIS DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND ULTIMATELY ISSUE TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO.1002/AHD/2006. VIDE ORDER DATED 24/04/2006, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFI RMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING ITS DECISION IN ITA NOS.5 41 & 558/AHD/2005 PASSED FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2001-02. DISSATISFIED WITH T HIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, ASSESSEE HAS FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION BEARING NO.73/AHD/2015. THIS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26/02/2014. COPIES OF T HESE ORDERS HAVE BEEN ANNEXED WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSES SEE AS ANNEXURE-D, C & A. 3. FIRST, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED O UT THAT AFTER RESTORATION OF THIS APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER O N THIS ISSUE AND IT WAS LISTED FOR HEARING AFRESH BEFORE THE BENCH AND ULT IMATELY THE BENCH HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER: 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFO RE US, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES HAVE AGREED THAT THE IDENTICAL I SSUE ON IDENTICAL FACTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO.558/AHD/2005 ON 1 ST JULY, 2019 AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICATIONAL HIGH COUR T DATED 8 TH JUNE, 2016 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WHICH HAS B EEN CONFIRMED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 8 TH MAY, 2018 OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS. T HE RELEVANT PART OF DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS CITED ABOVE IS REP RODUCED AS UNDER:- MA NOS.61 & 98/AHD/2020 (IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006) ACIT VS. NIRMA LIMITED(CROSS) ASS T.YEAR 2000-01 - 3 - LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE ISSU E IN APPEAL IS NOW COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE, BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT DATED 8 TH JUNE 2016 WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 8 TH MAY 2018, BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS, AND THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY HONBLE COURTS ABOVE HAS NOW CONSTANTLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE COORD INATE BENCHES IN CASES OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUP ENTITIES. THE ARGU MENTS RAISED BEFORE US ON MERITS, IN THIS LIGHT, NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATE D UPON, AS THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. IN VIEW OF THIS AGREED POSI TION, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM IN QUESTION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND IDENTICAL FACTS AS CITED ABOVE, T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH THE DETAILS TABULATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON PAGE NOS.2 & 3. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS SUBMISSION FROM THE APPLICATION WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE DETAILS OF ORDERS PASSED BY HONBLE ITAT FOR C URRENT ASST.YEAR: 2000-01 ARE AS UNDER IN TABULAR FORM: SR. NO. DATE PARTICULARS OF ORDER DECISION ANNE- XURE 1. 26-02-04 ITA 1002/AHD/2006 ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED STATING THAT SIMILAR GROUND REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF I.T. ACT ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRIKAMPURA DIVISION FOR ASST.YEAR: 2001-02 WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE D MA NOS.61 & 98/AHD/2020 (IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006) ACIT VS. NIRMA LIMITED(CROSS) ASS T.YEAR 2000-01 - 4 - TRIBUNAL 2. 19-01-16 M.A.NO. 73/AHD/2015 HONBLE TRIBUNAL RECALLED THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006 DTD. 26- 12-2014 AND DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL C 3. 11-09-19 ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006 HONBLE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STATING THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE ON IDENTICAL FACTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO.558/AHD/2005 ON 01-07- 2019. THIS ISSUE WAS RELATED TO SALES TAX BENEFIT AND NOT AGAINST DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF I T ACT. A VI. ACCORDINGLY, HONBLE TRIBUNAL, IN THE ORDER DT D. 11-09-2019 REPRODUCED THE GROUND RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE U/S.8 0IA OF THE I.T. ACT IN PARA NO.2 OF THE SAID ORDER. HOWEVER, WITH DUE RESPECT, HONBLE ITAT DID NOT ADJUDICATE SAID GROUND REGARDI NG CLAIM FO DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE I.T. ACT INSTEAD DISCUSSE D AND ALLOWED THE DIFFERENT GROUND OF SALES TAX BENEFIT INADVERTE NTLY. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SAID ISSUE OF SALES TAX BENEFIT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE IN CURRENT ASST.YEAR: 2000-01 AT APPELLATE LEVEL. THU S, THE GROUND REGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE I.T. A CT ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRIKAMPURA DIVISION FOR ASST.YEAR: 200 -01 MAY BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH AGAINST ORDER IN ITA NO.1002/AHD /2006. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THIS PETI TION, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, APPROPRIATE ORDER MAY BE PASSED THEREON, FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN GRATEFUL. MA NOS.61 & 98/AHD/2020 (IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006) ACIT VS. NIRMA LIMITED(CROSS) ASS T.YEAR 2000-01 - 5 - 5. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES AND THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 558/AHD/2005 FOR AY 2001-02. SOME HOW, THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT RELATE TO T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, RATHER IT IS WITH RESPECT TO SUBSIDY ON SALES TAX BENEFIT WHICH IS ALTOGETHER A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THEM, SOME INADVERTENT ERROR CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L WHICH REQUIRED RECTIFICATION. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTA KE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WH ICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. 6.1. IF WE EXAMINE THE RECORDS, THEN IT WILL REVEA L THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL MADE RELIANCE UPON THE FINDING WHICH IS NOT ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA IS ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON AN ISSUE WHEREIN BENEFIT OF SUBSIDY ON SALES TAX COMPONENT WAS GIVEN . THEREFORE, WE ARE MA NOS.61 & 98/AHD/2020 (IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006) ACIT VS. NIRMA LIMITED(CROSS) ASS T.YEAR 2000-01 - 6 - OF THE VIEW THAT AN APPARENT ERROR HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT REQUIRED RECTIFICATION. HENCE, WE ALLOW BOTH THE A PPLICATIONS AND RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR READJUDICATION ON MER IT. ACCORDINGLY, THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS O RIGINAL NUMBER AND FIX THE SAME FOR FRESH HEARING IN DUE COURSE UNDER THE INTI MATION TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 6.2. AS FAR AS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, IT IS ALSO IDENTICAL POINTING OUT SAME MISTAKE. THEREFORE, TH IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALSO TREATED AS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS F ILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE BOTH ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07/12/2020 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07 /12/2020 %.., .'.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS MA NOS.61 & 98/AHD/2020 (IN ITA NO.1002/AHD/2006) ACIT VS. NIRMA LIMITED(CROSS) ASS T.YEAR 2000-01 - 7 - !'#' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPLICANTS 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ()* + / CONCERNED CIT 4. + ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. ./0 '')* , )*' , ( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 034 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, . ' //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 4.2.2020 (DICTATION PAD 8- PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 4.2.2020 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.07/12/2020 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 07/12/2020 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER