Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for Asst. Year 2014-15 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’s order dt.18.12.2018 passed in case No.10292/2017-18/CIT(A)-2 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is accordingly proceeded exparte.
The Revenue has proposed the following substantive grounds in this appeal :
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is correct in law in holding that cogeneration power plant is an independent undertaking eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Income Tax Act,1961 when the operations are integrated with the existing sugar plant ? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is correct in law in holding that generation of LP steam which is a waste product with no value is equal to generation of power which is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act ? 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is correct in law in holding that LP steam has definite value where as such LP steam has no market value and I fact a marketable commodity ?
We notice with the able assistance of learned department representative that the CIT(A) detailed discussion holding the assessee as eligible for 80IA deduction reads as under :
This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench orders in Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2016-17 involving Revenue’s appeals in ITA 1283/Hyd/2017 and 1598/Hyd/2019 dt.9.4.2021 has already upheld the CIT(A)’s identical action by adopting judicial consistency thereby holding the assessee’s power plant is eligible for 80IA deduction. The Revenue is fair enough in not pin pointing any exception except mentioning tribunal's above cited order (supra) in earlier assessment years. We thus see no reason to adopt a different approach in the impugned assessment year. The CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings stand affirmed therefore.