ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NEOVIA LOGISTICS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 75/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 April 2016AY 2007-085 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 since a co-ordinate bench had already decided the issue in the assessee's favor for a prior assessment year with identical facts, the CIT(Appeals) was correct in following that order. The pendency of an appeal before the High Court did not warrant a different view.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 10A for the transfer of a Logistics Division as a going concern. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, viewing the transfer as a tax evasion tactic. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim by following a previous tribunal order in the assessee's own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the transfer of a Logistics Division as a going concern is eligible for deduction under Section 10A, and if a previous tribunal order on identical facts binds the current assessment years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

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

Hearing: 28.03.2016Pronounced: 13.04.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

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

1.

All the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, dated 11.09.2015, for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11. The assessee has filed cross-objections against the very same orders of the CIT(Appeals). Since common issue arises in these appeals, we heard all the appeals and the cross-objections together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

Shri Ajit Kumar Varma, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer found that the transfer of Logistics Division as a going concern to the assessee by M/s Caterpillar Commercial Pvt. Ltd., is a colourable exercise with the intention of evading tax, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee.

However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals), by following the order of this Tribunal in dated 17.02.2012 in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that an appeal has already been filed before the High Court against the order of this Tribunal and the same is pending.

The Ld. D.R. submitted that the present appeals are filed only to keep the matter alive.

3.

We have heard Sh. Raghunathan Sampath, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Admittedly, the agreement dated 15.07.2004 for transfer of Logistics Division as a going concern, was examined by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06 and found that the Logistics Division was transferred as going concern to the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) has simply followed the order of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, at this stage, the Revenue cannot contend that the agreement dated 15.07.2004 was a colourable exercise with an intention to evade tax. According to the Ld. counsel, merely because an appeal is pending before the High Court against the order of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06, that cannot be a reason to take a different view. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the cross-objections are only to support the orders of the CIT(Appeals).

4.

We have considered the submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The agreement dated 15.07.2004 was a subject matter of examination by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06 and this Tribunal found that the Logistics Division was transferred as going concern to the assessee and the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) for the years under consideration, has simply followed the order of this Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06. It is not in dispute that the facts are identical to that of the assessment year 2005-06.

Therefore, the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 is applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Mere pendency of appeal before the High Court cannot be a reason to take a different view. It is nobody’s case that the order of the Tribunal is stayed by the High Court. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly followed the order of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, for assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly the same are confirmed.

5.

The cross-objections filed by the assessee are only to support the orders of the CIT(Appeals). This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee can very well support the orders of the CIT(Appeals) without filing the cross-objections.

Therefore, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are not maintainable. kkk

6.

In the result, both, the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 13th April, 2016 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →