Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM
The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Pune dated 13.10.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of ld.CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A)-7, Pune has erred in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.4,08,76,749/-
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 246 ITR 140 (Delhi) which is misplaced.”
The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a Government Company and engaged in the business of providing warehousing facilities at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,08,76,749/- under Sec.80IA(4) of the Act which was disallowed by the AO for the reasons as discussed below :
i. The assessee was to obtain a certificate from Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust to the effect that the structure for storage, loading and unloading is within the area of port in pursuance to the CBDT Circular No.10/2005 dated 16.02.2005. But the same was not furnished by the assessee. As such, the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust denied to issue such certificate to the assessee. ii. In the earlier year, in ITAT Pune Bench has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee but the order of the ITAT has been challenged before the higher forum. Therefore, the earlier year of ITAT does not have any binding force.
In view of the above, the AO disallowed the claim of assessee of Rs. 4,08,76,649/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Act and added the same to its total income.
Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act after placing reliance on the order of the ITAT in the own case of the assessee in the earlier years.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us.
Both the learned Departmental Representative and learned Authorised Representative before us, vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal in the own cases of assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 in ITA No.2864/PUN/2016 and ITA No.649/PUN/2017, respectively, has decided the appeals in favour of the assessee by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act.
We further find that Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in order dt.28.02.2019, wherein it has given finding as under :
“6. We have perused the case records and have given thoughtful consideration to the judicial pronouncements placed before us. We observe that Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his detailed order has provided relief to the assessee on the issue of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the basis of decision by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 wherein the Tribunal has ruled in favour of the assessee allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. We further observe that the Ld. AR at the time of hearing has placed before us the copy of order passed by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in for the assessment year 2011-12 again in assessee’s own case where the Tribunal has followed its own order for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009- 10 in the case of assessee and provided relief to the assessee. Therefore, relief granted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee on the issue are not only covered by the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 as well but also for assessment year 2011-12. We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and relief provided to the assessee herein is sustained.”
Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decisions of Tribunal that were followed by the Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the appeals of Revenue have been set aside / stayed or overruled by the higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case for the year under consideration and that of earlier years nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) and hence, the relief provided to the assessee herein is sustained. Thus, the grounds of Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this the 18th day of February, 2021