Ita.189/13 v. According To The Department, The Earlier Judgments In

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/29TH KARTHIKA, 1935 ITA.No. 189 of 2013 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 235/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 11-01-2013 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT:----------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-------------------------- M/S. AL-GAYATRI TRADING CO.PVT. LTD. 363-A, GAYATHRI HOUSE, CHERIYANAD P O CHENGANNUR-689511 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON20-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------- I.T.A.No. 189 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20[th] November, 2013JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, C.J. The present appeal relates to assessment year 2004-2005.The undisputed facts are, appellant assessee, a Company isdealing in the business of making tea bags and export the sameapart from other commodities. When return of income wasoriginally filed by the assessee declaring the total income, theassessee had claimed deduction of 94,76,772/- under Section₹10A of the Income Tax Act. Later on notice came to be issuedunder Section 148 of the Act suggesting reopening of theassessment. When show cause notice was issued to explain theclaim of exemption under Section 10A of the Act on the groundthat assessee Company is not involved in manufacturing processor production of any article, the assessee claimed that thebusiness set up by him is a new industrial undertaking tomanufacture tea packet and tea bags, therefore, they are entitledfor such exemption. This was rejected by the assessing officer ITA.189/13 rejecting the contention of the assessee that it automaticallybecome a manufacturing unit, as it is set up in the Cochin ExportProcessing Zone. Appeal came to be filed and the appellateauthority, relying on the decision of this Court in the case ofM/s.Girnar Industries v. CIT Kochi [(2011)338 ITR 277(Ker))opined, the assessee unit is engaged in manufacturing of tea fromExport Processing Zone, therefore, they are entitled for deductionunder Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The department,aggrieved by the said order, approached Tribunal and theTribunal, distinguishing the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT v.Tara Agency (292 ITR 444 (SC) and relying on the judgment inM/s.Girnar Industries' case (Supra), proceeded to confirm theorder of the CIT (Appeals). Aggrieved by the same, the presentappeal is filed. 2. According to the department, the earlier judgments in M/s.Girnar Industries' case (Supra) and Tara Agency's case(Supra) are pending before the Apex Court, however, no stay isgranted. In this appeal we are required to see whether Tribunalhas decided the matter applying the law laid down by this Courtto the facts prevalent in the case before the Tribunal was justifiedor not. As on today, the two judgments of this court covering the ITA.189/13 issue are in existence. Till those judgments are set aside ormodified by the Apex Court, we cannot find any error on the partof the Tribunal in placing reliance on those decisions to arrive at aconclusion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs20.11