ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, CHENNAI vs. GVG PAPER MILLS LTD, UDUMALPET

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2270/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 February 2018AY 2013-145 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee by the same Tribunal for earlier assessment years. Furthermore, for a subsequent year, the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim after examining separate books of account for the Turbine Division.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA for the profit on captive consumption of power generated by its Turbine Division. The Revenue argued that the Turbine Division was an incidental part of the paper mill and not a separate business.

What were the issues?

Whether the profit from a captive power generation unit (Turbine Division) of a paper mill is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA, and if the division constitutes a separate eligible business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Shri A. Dhananjayan, CA
Hearing: 20.02.2018Pronounced: 28.02.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai, dated 09.05.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

There was a delay of 31 days in filing this appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and the Ld. representative for the assessee. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time.

Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is with regard to the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the profit on the captive consumption of power generated by Turbine Division of the paper mill. According to the Ld. D.R., the electricity generated by the Turbine Division is an incidental mechanism of the paper industry. According to the Ld. D.R., the Turbine Division works only when the steam for paper industry runs. In case the paper division was not working, the Turbine Division cannot function independently, therefore, the Turbine Division cannot exist without paper division of the company. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., creating a part of the paper production process into a separate division amounts to splitting and reconstruction of existing business.

Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.

4.

On the contrary, Shri A. Dhananjayan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue came before this Tribunal for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and this Tribunal by an order dated 18.12.2015, has allowed the claim of the assessee. For the assessment year 2011-12 in I.T.A.

No.1452/Mds/2016, this Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee is maintaining independent and separate books of account for Turbine Division. According to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer after examining the same, allowed the claim of the assessee. Even for the subsequent year, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal, has allowed the claim of the assessee. Merely because an appeal is said to be pending before the Madras High Court, according to the Ld. representative, that cannot be a reason to deny the claim of the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Act.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the Ld. representative for the assessee, this Tribunal examined the issue elaborately for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. Even for assessment year 2011-12, the matter was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee was maintaining any separate books of account. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 26.12.2016, examined this issue and found that the assessee was maintaining separate books of account and allowed the claim of the assessee. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 28th February, 2018 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 28th February, 2018. Kri.

More judgments on Section 80-IA

All 612 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →