2019 (8) TMI 1581 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA - Tribunal allowed the warehousing income to be a part of CFS income and held that the assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 80-IA - Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue and find out as to whether the assessee obtained any approval or entered into any agreement with Government or Government agency as in the case of CIT v. A. L. Logistics Private Limited 2015 (1) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Revenue contended that there was no specific agreement entered into by the assessee therein with the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or any statutory body for being entitled to claim the benefit of section 80-IA(4)(i) HELD THAT - After taking note of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce Infrastructure Division vide Notification No. 16/6/2003-Infra-I dated May 27, 2003 and the letter received by the assessee therein from the director, it was pointed out that the proposal of the assessee therein was accepted by the Government on certain conditions, which were duly complied with by the assessee therein and that there may not be any specific agreement, but the sequence of events showed that the assessee was providing CFS facility in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government. Therefore, it was held that there was no need to insist for specific execution of agreements. The court also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of United Liner Agencies of India Private Limited 2013 (9) TMI 302 - ITAT MUMBAI Tribunal ought to have applied the decision in the assessee's own case 2012 (6) TMI 318 - ITAT CHENNAI . In any event, since the matter had been sent back to the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. If the identical issue had arisen in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years and the matter travelled up to the Tribunal and the assessee had succeeded before the Tribunal (the appeal of the Department was dismissed), then the decision of the Tribunal is binding on the authorities, which are anterior to that of the Tribunal and obviously, would bind the Assessing Officer - Tribunal cannot ignore the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench unless it distinguishes the decision on the merits or if it disagrees with the view taken by the Tribunal and the only option would be to refer the same for consideration to a larger Bench. The Tribunal did not do either of the options available to it. Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of A. L. Logistics Private Limited 2015 (1) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT while remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Above tax case appeals are disposed of and the matters are remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to the Assessing Officer to apply the decision of the Tribunal 2012 (6) TMI 318 - ITAT CHENNAI and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Remanding of the matter by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Availability of the approval/agreement for the claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4).
3. Non-following of earlier decisions by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the same infrastructure facility.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Remanding of the matter by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine whether the assessee obtained any approval or entered into any agreement with the Government or a Government agency, as in the case of CIT v. A. L. Logistics Private Limited. The court expressed confusion over this remand since the Tribunal had previously accepted the assessee's stand for earlier assessment years (2002-03 and 2003-04). The Tribunal had already allowed the warehousing income to be part of CFS income, holding it eligible for deduction under section 80-IA, and found that the warehousing facilities were a necessary part of the CFS infrastructure.

2. Availability of the approval/agreement for the claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4):

The Tribunal did not properly consider the assessee's compliance with the conditions prescribed for the deduction under section 80-IA(4). The Tribunal's earlier orders for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06 had already addressed this issue, confirming that the warehousing income was part of the CFS income and eligible for deduction. The court noted that the assessee had complied with the necessary guidelines and obtained the required approvals from the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, which included the creation of adequate warehousing facilities as part of the CFS infrastructure.

3. Non-following of earlier decisions by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the same infrastructure facility:

The Tribunal failed to follow its own earlier decisions, which had granted the deduction for the same infrastructure facility. The court emphasized that the Tribunal is bound by its previous decisions unless it distinguishes the case on its merits or refers it to a larger bench if it disagrees. The Tribunal did neither, which was a procedural lapse. The court pointed out that the decision in A. L. Logistics Private Limited had clearly held that there was no necessity for a specific execution of an agreement for the deduction under section 80-IA(4).

Conclusion:

The High Court disposed of the appeals, remanding the matters to the Assessing Officer with directions to apply the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years and to pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with the law. The assessee was also directed to provide communications from the Government of India to establish that they are approved container freight stations. The substantial questions of law were left open, and the connected CMPs were closed with no costs.