DCIT, TIRUPPUR vs. KESHARINANDAN KNIT FABRCIES (P) LTD., TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1314/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 September 2016AY 2010-113 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 condoned the delay and held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the binding judgment of the Madras High Court, even though an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's orders.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT with a delay of 81 days. The appeals were against the orders of the CIT(Appeals) who allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA.

What were the issues?

Whether the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court justifies not following a binding High Court judgment for allowing a deduction. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80-IA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

For Respondent: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CA
Hearing: 25.07.2016Pronounced: 15.09.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

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

1.

Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Coimbatore, dated 27.11.2015 and pertain to assessment years 2012-13 and 2010-11. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard both the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

There was a delay of 81 days in filing these appeals 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 appeals before the stipulated time.

Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeals.

3.

We have heard Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative and Shri N. Vijay Kumar, the Ld. representative for the assessee. The claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was rejected by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the Revenue filed the appeals before the Apex Court against the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (340 ITR 477). However, the CIT(Appeals) found that the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) is binding on the Assessing Officer and accordingly, he allowed the claim of the assessee. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) is binding on both the authorities below, a mere pendancy of SLP before the Apex Court may not be a reason for not following the judgment of Madras High Court. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee by placing his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authority and accordingly both the orders of the CIT(Appeals) are confirmed.

4.

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

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 →