Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, dated 25.09.2017 in for the assessment year 2009-10 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) & 147 of the Act.
The only issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Ld.AO to allow deduction of Rs.5,30,35,455/- under Sub-Section 4(i) of Section 80IA of the Act.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of operating container freight station and warehousing facilities, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 24.09.2009 declaring ‘Nil’ income after claiming deduction of Rs.5,80,96,012/- under Section 80IA of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and finally assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act on 30.12.2016 wherein the Ld.AO assessed the income of the assessee as Rs.5,30,53,455/- by disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s.80IA of the Act.
At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11, in vide order dated 01.01.2016, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal had held the matter in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that the Ld.AO had disallowed the claim of deduction U/s.80IA of the Act for the relevant assessment
Revenue had contested the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2010-11 before the Hon’ble High Court. It was also pointed out by the Ld.AR that in the case of M/s. AL Logistics Pvt. Ltd., on the identical issue, the Revenue had filed a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, disregarding those facts the Ld.AO held the issue against the assessee on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has not reached finality, hence the same need not be followed as binding precedent. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal on the identical issue in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11, held the issue in favour of the assessee, against which the Revenue is on appeal before the Tribunal. It was therefore pleaded that the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits and may be dismissed. The Ld.DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld.AR.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. It is not in disputed that on the identical issue in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010- 11, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal had decided the matter in favour of the assessee. In these circumstances we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment year because he has only followed the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly we hereby uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 31st May, 2018 at Chennai.