Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1No v. Shri P.v. Chandran9-A, Valluvar Street,Sivananda Colony,Coimbatore - 641 012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2016C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.600 of 2016andCMP. No.12364 of 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1No.63, Race Course Road,Coimbatore.... Appellant Vs Shri P.V. Chandran9-A, Valluvar Street,Sivananda Colony,Coimbatore - 641 012.... Respondent Prayer : Appeal filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 08.12.2015 in ITANo.1961/Mds/2015, and appeal against the Order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - I, Coimbatore in AppealNo.320/14-15 dated 10.06.2015 and appeal against the Order ofthe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 2,Coimbatore, Assessment Order made under Section 143(3) for theAssessment Year 2012-13 in PAN.No. dated 07.01.2015. Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J) Challenge in this Tax Appeal, is to an order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1961/Mds/2015, dated08.12.2015, by which, the Tribunal dismissed the appealpreferred by the Revenue, against the order of the Commissionerof Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore, dated 10.06.2015 for theAssessment Year 2012-13. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Revenue has come up with the instant Tax Case Appeal,raising the following substantial questions of law:-“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law inholding that the assessee is entitled to deductionunder section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin holding that unabsorbed depreciation of the earlieryears before the first year or claim, which hasalready been absorbed,should not be notionally carriedforward and taken into consideration for computationof deduction u/s.80 IA of the Income Tax Act?” 3. As regards substantial questions of law raised, it isthe fair representation of the learned Senior Standing Counselfor Income Tax Department that this Court has been consistentlyfollowing the decision in M/s.Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P)Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 340ITR 477. He also submitted that challenge to the same, ispending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.1136 of 2011. 4.Similar to the facts and circumstances of the case,while adverting to the substantial questions of law raised andafter considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court inLiberty India vs. CIT reported in (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 233 :(2009) 28 DTR (SC) 73 : (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and the judgmentof the Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Mewar Oil & General MillsLtd. reported in (2004) 186 CTR (Raj) 141 : (2004) 271 ITR 311(Raj), a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in VelayudhaswamySpinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.'s case (stated supra), held that oncethe losses and other deductions are set off against the incomeof the assessee in the previous year, it should not bere-opened again, for the purpose of computation of current yearincome, under Sections 80-I and 80-IA of the Act. 5. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.'s case (statedsupra), has been followed in CIT v. R.Yuvaraj reported in [2015]57 TAXMANN.COM 252 (Madras), wherein, it has been held thatthough it was contended that SLP filed against the abovereported judgment, is pending on the file of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, the effect of the same, would not amount to reversal orerase the dictum. 6. Material on record discloses that while confirming theorder of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, at paragraph No.3 has held as follows:"........This Tribunal is of the consideredopinion that mere pendency of Special Leave Petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.'s case (statedsupra), has been followed in CIT v. R.Yuvaraj reported in [2015]57 TAXMANN.COM 252 (Madras), wherein, it has been held thatthough it was contended that SLP filed against the abovereported judgment, is pending on the file of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, the effect of the same, would not amount to reversal orerase the dictum. 6. Material on record discloses that while confirming theorder of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, at paragraph No.3 has held as follows:"........This Tribunal is of the consideredopinion that mere pendency of Special Leave Petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the Apex Court cannot be a reason to take adifferent view. The judgment of Madras High Court isbinding on all the authorities in the State of TamilNadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. Therefore,the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightlyallowed the claim of the assessees by following thebinding judgment of Madras High Court inVelayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd (supra).Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity inthe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)." 7. Going through the material on record, we are of the viewthat there are no valid grounds to reverse the aforesaid order.Questions of law raised are answered against the Revenue and infavour of the assessee and the instant appeal deserves to bedismissed. 8. In the result, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed at thestage of admission itself. No costs. Consequently, connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - I, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 2, Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.48957 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/