Auto-Tuf Safety Glass, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No.1861/Ahd/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Tribunal is bound by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, and the assessee's case falls within that High Court's territorial jurisdiction, the Tribunal is bound to follow the High Court's decision on the same question; a contrary decision of another High Court does not displace the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. The condition of section 80IB deduction that a factory licence be obtained by a specified date does not operate to disallow the deduction where the Tribunal has in the assessee's own earlier years allowed the same claim and no distinguishing feature exists; the irregularity in commencing production before licensing is relevant to consequences under the Factories Act and does not, by itself, distinguish between lawful and unlawful production for the purposes of section 80IB.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hea ring : 2 3/04/2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of P ronouncement: 30 /04 /20 15
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This Revenue's appeal for A.Y.2008-09, arises from order of the CIT(A) Valsad dated 31.5.2011 passed in case no.VLS/149/10- 11 deleting section 80IB deduction disallowance of Rs.1,35,15,461/- in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act in short 'the Act'.
2. The assessee-firm filed its return on 29.9.2008 admitting Nil income. It claimed section 80IB deduction of Rs.1,35,15,461/-. The same was processed. The Assessing Officer took up scrutiny. He inter alia noticed that similar deduction claimed in assessment years ITA No. 1861/Ahd/2011 M/s. Auto Tuf Safety Glass For A.Y. 2008-09 -2-
to 2006-07 and 2007-08 stood declined on the ground that the Chief Inspector Factories had issued a license on only on 3.6.2004; not on or before 31.3.2004 whereas it manufacturing activity had commenced on 26.3.2004 prior to that of the license date. The assessee pleaded that the tribunal had already allowed its very claim of deduction in said assessment years, all necessary conditions u/s.80IB stood fulfilled and getting a factory license before 31.3.2004 was not a condition precedent so as to avail the impugned deduction. The Assessing Officer could not agree. He framed assessment on 30.11.2010 disallowing the assessee's deduction claim by reiterating the aforesaid reasons.
3. The CIT(A) has accepted the assessee's contention by placing reliance on the tribunal order for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007- 08 on the very issue. Therefore the Revenue is in appeal.
4. We have heard both sides and gone through the relevant findings. The Revenue is fair enough not to dispute the facts narrated hereinabove and no distinction is involved in the tribunal's order in assessee's own case in preceding assessment year. A co- ordinate bench in ITA 1356/Ahd/2009 decided on 28.8.2009 holds that this irregularity is relevant only for the purpose of the consequences flowing under the factories Act and not under the provisions of Income Tax law prescribing section 80IB deduction which does not distinguish between lawful or unlawful production. The Revenue at this stage quotes hon'ble jurisdictional High Court ITA No. 1861/Ahd/2011 M/s. Auto Tuf Safety Glass For A.Y. 2008-09 -3-
decision in CIT vs. Jolly Polymers (2012) 342 ITR 87 deciding the very question against the assessee. However, we find that the present assessee based in Daman Union Territory comes under the territorial jurisdiction of hon'ble Bombay High Court which has already decided the issue against the Revenue in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1622 of 2012 CIT vs. Jolly Polymers in order dated 21st February, 2013. Therefore, the assessee's case is covered by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court based in Bombay as per Section 269(vi) of the Act. The Revenue's arguments fail on legality as well as on merits.
5. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on this day, the 30th April, 2015 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated /04/2015 Prabhat Kr. Kesarwani, Sr. P.S. आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुस ार / BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free