9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judicial verdict directly on the issue coming from the Hon'ble highest court of land. We thus quote Article-141 of the Constitution of India and hold that judicial discipline requires that all judicial forums must make way for the hon'ble apex court s decision on the relevant issue. It must therefore be presumed that the issue now stands settled upto hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee s favour with retrospective effect in other words. We thus accept the assessee s sole substantive grievance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to finalise consequential computation as per law. It is made clear that although the assessee has filed its calculation sheet(s) regarding Section 80-IA and Section 80HHC deduction(s) pertaining to the alleged eligible undertakings, this latter component is restored back to the Assessing Officer to arrive at his final conclusion as per law after factual verification of the necessary records. - ITA No. 1507 to 1510/Hyd/13 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2021 - Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri C.P.Rama Swami, AR For the Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Against these orders, the appellant has fried an appeal before CIT(A) and the appeals for Asst. years 2002-03 and 2004-05 were settled in favour of the appellant and the appeal for Asst.year 1999-2000 was partly allowed in favour of the appellant by the CIT(A). Against these appellate orders, the Department has filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Asst. years 2002-03 and 2004-05 and the appellant has filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Asst.year 1999-2000. One of the issues involved in the order is deductions u/s.80IA and 80HHC. The Tribunal in its order ITA No.1265/HYd/2005 dt.30-6-2010 has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for ascertaining the fact whether he had worked out the deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act in line with the working Shown in the order and as per the ruling of the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal decision in the case of Hindustan Mint and Agro Products Private limited(Supra). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has passed the consequential orders for Asst.years 1999-2000, 2002-03 and 2004-05. 03.0 Aggrieved. With the above consequential orders, the assessee preferred appeals with the following common effective grounds. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhimavaram. It was also contended that the appellant company is also entitled for deduction U/s.80HHC on export profits. 06.1 It has also been submitted that prior to the introduction of Sec.80IA, the assessees were entitled for deduction from the profits of the Industrial undertaking U/s.8oI i.e., up to Asst.year 1998-99 and in that Section there was no Provision similar to the provision of Subsection (9) of 80IA. And In the absence of such Provision, the, assesses were claiming higher deduction on under various provisions of Chapter-VIA, whereby the deduction amount was more than the profits of the Industrial Undertaking because the assesses were having other income included in the gross total income. Though, there is a provision in Sec.80A(2) as per which the aggregate amount of deduction under Chapter-VIA should not exceed the gross total income of the assessee, yet, the assessees were claiming the deduction in respect of the Industrial undertaking under various sections of Chapter-VIA in excess of the profits of the Industrial Undertaking as long as the gross total income was there. 06.2 It has been further stated that the purpose for which Sec.8oIA(9) has been ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Balram Kumawat Vs Union of India(2003) held that the courts should. adopt a bolder construction to give effect to the Parliamentary intention, rejecting a construction which will defeat the intention of the legislature even though there may be some in exactitude in the language used. Therefore, if the principle of harmonious construction of statues are applied to this section, it would only mean that the deduction would be allowed u/s.80HHC without deducting the quantum of deduction allowed u/s.80IA, subject to the overall ceiling that it should not exceed the total profits of the Industrial Undertaking which exactly is the legislative intention of the parliament. 06.4 The appellant relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of its claim. i) Associated Capsules Private Ltd Vs CIT ii) Gitanjali Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs ITO - 2006 Tax Pub(DT) 1706 (Mum- Trib) iii) Reliable Dyechem (P) Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT - 2012 Tax Pub(DT)0565 (Rkt-Trib) iv) Systematic Exports Vs ACIT - 2011 Tax Pub(DT) 1922 (Mum-Trib) 06.5 In the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Special Bench held that to the extent of the amount of profits of business on which 80IA deduction is allowed, no other deduction shall be allowed under any other provisions under part-C of Chapter-VIA of the Act and this decision of Special Bench has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Great Eastern Exports Vs CIT (2011) 37(1) DTCL (Delhi High Court). Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s.Olam Exports (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (2009) 184 Taxman 373. The contention of the appellant that the Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench In the case of Southern Rocks Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Ongole Vs DCIT (Supra) has directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd and the same should be followed in the appellant's case cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the jurisdictional Tribunal in the appellant's own case has directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of the Delhi Special Bench in the case of Hindustan Mint Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. which has been affirmed by the Delhi High Court. Since there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot amount to double deduction. 6. We next advert to the Revenue s objections that once this tribunal s remand directions had made it clear that the issue had to be decided in view of the Special Bench s decision (supra), we ought not to take note of all other intervening legal developments at all. We find no force in the foregoing technical argument. The clinching fact that remains is that on the one hand is tribunal s remand order directing the Assessing Officer to follow its yet another Special Bench (supra) which itself stands overruled in (2011) 332 ITR 42 (Bom) Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT and on the other hand is the judicial verdict directly on the issue coming from the Hon'ble highest court of land. We thus quote Article-141 of the Constitution of India and hold that judicial discipline requires that all judicial forums must make way for the hon'ble apex court s decision on the relevant issue. It must therefore be presumed that the issue now stands settled upto hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee s favour with retrospective effect in other words. We thus accept the assessee s sole substantive grievance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
