JCIT (OSD) 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SAJJAN INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A,) the assessee company has filed an appeal with the Tribunal. Whereas the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 23.04.2014 in & 7532/Mum/2011& 5856/Mum/2012 for the Shri Sajjan Ind ltd, Mumbai A.Y 2007-08,2008-09 & 2009-10 has restored the disputed issues to the file of the A.O. Subsequent to the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT the A.O has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on the assessee. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the details and the case was discussed. Whereas, the A.O. has considered the facts that the assessee has disallowed suo-moto u/s 14A r.w.s 8D(ii) Rs. 50,05,020/- and has granted relief and determined total income of Rs. 24,77,53,800/- and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act dated 05.01.2017. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal

, submissions of the assessee and has dealt at Para 3 & 4.1 of the order and allowed the claim u/se 80IA of the Act. But in respect of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii), since the assessee has suo-moto made disallowance and the A.O has already granted the relief to the assessee as per the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT, this ground of appeal was dismissed. The CIT(A) has granted relief in the other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the Revenue has filed an appeal with the Hon’ble Tribunal. Shri Sajjan Ind ltd, Mumbai

3. At the time of hearing the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in granting the relief of claim u/s 80IA of the Act relying on ITAT order in assessee’s own case. But the revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the ITAT order and the same is pending. Therefore, the CIT(A) order be set aside and A.O. order is restored.

4.Contra, the Ld.AR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue does not emanate from assessment order and prayed for dismissal of revenue appeal.

5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the Ld.DR contentions that the CIT(A) has erred in granting the relief in respect of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. We find the Ld.CIT(A) in appellate order at page 5 Para 4.1 has observed as under:

“4.1 So far as ground of appeal

No.3 is concerned, it is seen from the submissions made by the appellant that the ground of appeal raised by the appellant regarding allowance of deduction u/s 80IA on Captive Power Plant was decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal at para 41 of its common order in & 7532/Mum/2011 and ITA No. 5856/Mum/2012 dated 23.04.2014. The AO has failed to take cognizance of directions issued by the Hon’ble Tribunal. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal, the AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act in respect of Captive Power Shri Sajjan Ind ltd, Mumbai Plant owned by the appellant. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed”.

6. We find theLd.CIT(A) has relied on the Hon’ble Tribunal order and granted relief. The Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) with any cogent evidence or information. Further, the tax effect in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8-8-2019 and the Ld.DR accepts these facts. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and upheld the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the Revenue.