DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AKSHAYA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.666 & 667/Mds/2016 (�नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Akshaya Pvt.Ltd. Tax, G Square, 46, Rajiv Gandhi Corporate Circle-I(1), Salai, Kandanchavadi, Chennai-34. Chennai-600 096. PAN: AAFCA1708D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, अपीलाथ�क�ओरसे/ Appellant by Addl. CIT, : Mr. A.S.Sriraman, Advocate ��यथ�क�ओरसे/Respondent by 24th May, 2016 : सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of hearing 14th June, 2016 : घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- These two appeals are filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Chennai both dated 30.12.2015 in & 86/CIT(A)-1/2014-15 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 250(6) of the Act for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since the appeals are related to the same assessee for the successive assessment years, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.

ITA No.666/Mds/2016: 2. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on proportionate basis when some of the units exceed the maximum built up area of 1500 sq.ft., as stipulated under section 80IB(10)(c) of the Act .

ITA No.666/Mds/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12):

5.1. At the outset, learned authorized representative submitted before us by stating that this issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year 2009-10 in vide order dated 19.06.2015 in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction will be allowable proportionately.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has only followed the above stated decision. Therefore, in these circumstances, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and accordingly, we hereby confirm his order. (A.Y. 2012-13): Ground : Disallowance of `52,61,472/- under section 6. 40A(3) being the excess rent of Perungudi premises paid to M/s. Akshaya Home:

6.1. It was noticed by the learned Assessing Officer that the assessee has paid rent towards Perungudi premises to M/s. Akshaya Home wherein the Managing Director of the assessee company is the proprietor. On the same premises, M/s. Home Solutions Retail India Pvt.Ltd., had paid rent @ Rs. 80.74 per sq.ft amounting to Rs.7,78,244/- per month while as the assessee had paid rent @ Rs. 126.22 per sq.ft. amounting to Rs.12,16,700/- per month. Both the assessee and M/s. Home Solutions Retail India Pvt.Ltd had rented out identical space of 9639.32 sq.ft., in the same premises. Therefore the learned Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40A (2) of the Act and made addition of Rs.52,61,472/- [(12,16,700 – 7,78,244 )x 12 ].

6.2. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition following the order of his predecessor for the assessment year 2010-11 & 2011-12.

6.3. At the outset, we find nothing on record to point out that the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal on the earlier occasion. In these circumstances, we have to only presume that the Revenue has accepted the stand of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the earlier assessment years on this identical issue.

Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Hence this issue is also decided in favour of the assessee.