JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRANAV AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

Despite service none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application was moved for adjournment. However, we proceed to dispose of the appeal filed by Revenue after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, who fairly pointed out that the issue raised in the present stands covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier years.

Now, we proceed to take up the issues ground-wise. The first issue raised by the Revenue is against order of CIT(A) in allowing deduction under section 80JJA of the Act on baggase / hunk.

Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee was engaged in the business of producing animal feed, feed supplement, edible oils, fuel pellets and wind power generation. The assessee for the year under consideration as in the earlier years had claimed deduction under section 80JJA of the Act on profits and gains from the business of bio degradable waste. Further, the assessee had purchased windmill from M/s. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Limited (NMCOML). In the financial year 2007-08 the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected both the claims made by the assessee and also made disallowance in respect of payments made by assessee towards Employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC after ‘due date’ specified under the respective Acts and certain other expenses.

The CIT(A) allowed the claims of assessee in turn, relying on similar issue being decided by the CIT(A) in assessment year 2011-12. The year under appeal is assessment year 2012-13.

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A).

We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 has decided similar issue. The first issue decided by the Tribunal vide para 11 is with regard to the claim of deduction under section 80JJA of the Act, which was allowed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Padma S. Bora reported in 29 taxmann.com 230 (Bom) had held the assessee to be eligible to claim the deduction under section 80JJA of the Act.

Now, coming to the second issue which is raised vide grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 i.e. claim of depreciation on windmill.

The Tribunal had also adjudicated the aforesaid issue of depreciation on windmill vide para 14 of the order (supra) and has held the assessee to be entitled to claim the aforesaid depreciation. Following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue.

The last issue which is raised vide ground of appeal No.4 i.e. against the order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance made on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund.

The Tribunal had also decided similar issue vide para 15 of the order (supra) and had relied on the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749 (Bom) to hold that in case the payments were made before due date of filing the return of income, then no disallowance is to be made under section 43B of the Act. Following the same parity of reasoning, since the assessee has made payments before due date of filing the return of income, there is no merit in making any disallowance

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.