Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals of the revenue are directed against the respective order of CIT(A) in respect of two independent assessees. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.
No one appeared for the assessee in respect of service of the notice by R.P.A.D. Therefore, we heard the department representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit. Shri N.Madhavan, the learned department representative submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P)
Ltd. reported in 231 ITR 368. According to the learned department representative, the revenue has already filed the special leave petition before the Apex Court. Therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and 3. perused the material on record. The claim of 80IA is allowed by CIT(A) on the basis of the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). The only objection of the department representative is that a special leave petition was filed before the Apex Court against the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). The CBDT in the latest circular instructed its officers to accept the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) and not to file any further appeal and also instructed its officers to withdraw its appeals pending at various levels. Inspite of this circular, the department has filed the appeal. Since CBDT Circular is binding on all the authorities below, this appeal should not have been filed before this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the judgment of Madras High Court is binding on both the authorities below, the CIT(A) has rightly followed the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra).
In the result, both the appeals filed by the department stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on 25th November, 2016 at Chennai.