Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Shree Par Fragrance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 August, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "E", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.3507/M/2013
Assessment Year: 2010-11
The Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Shree Par Fragrance
Income Tax-8(3), Private Limited,
R.No.217, 981, Solitaire Corporate Park,
Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road,
M.K. Marg, Chakala,
Mumbai - 400020 Andheri,
Mumbai - 400 012.
PAN: AAFCS3683K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi, A.R.
Revenue by : Shri Kishor Dhule, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 11.08.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2014
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] dated 26.02.2013 relevant to assessment year 2010-11.
2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Act to the assessee following the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal for A.Y 2007-08 in the assessee's own case without appreciating that the Revenue has not accepted the said decision and has contested the same before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court"ITA No.3507/M/2013
2 M/s. Shree Par Fragrance Private Limited
3. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveals that the issue relating to entitlement of the assessee of deduction under section 80IB(4) has already been settled and decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for previous assessment year i.e. assessment year 2007-08.
4. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal only on the ground that the department has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and has contested the matter before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed that the assessee has been claiming deduction under section 80IB(4) since the assessment year 2004-
05. The department had rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IB(4) from assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The appeals of the assessee for the above said assessment years have been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) and further upheld by the Tribunal. The department has continued to file the appeals for the subsequent years to keep the issue alive on the ground that the department has contested the matter before the Hon'ble High Court. For this relevant assessment year also, the ld. CIT(A) observed that since the issue of claim of deduction under section 80IB(4) has been consistently decided by the appellate authorities up to the level of Tribunal, hence he, following the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08 in the own case of the assessee, has allowed the claim of the assessee regarding section 80IB(4) deduction.
5. We may observe that the issue has already been settled and decided in favour of the assessee up to the level of Tribunal in the previous assessment years. Merely because the department has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, that itself, cannot be a ground for raising ITA No.3507/M/2013 3 M/s. Shree Par Fragrance Private Limited the same dispute again in subsequent years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. M/s. Kishan Ratilal Choksey Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd." in ITA No.1001 of 2011 decided on 17th April, 2014 has strongly discouraged the attitude of the Department for filing appeals on the issues which have already been settled and decided in the appeals pertaining to prior assessment years in the case of the very assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "UOI and Others vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation" AIR 1992 SC 711 has categorically held that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department in-itself is an objectionable phrase and is not a ground for not following the same unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue as the assessee's case is squarely covered with the earlier decision of the Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08.
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.08.2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.K. Billaiya) (Sanjay Garg)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 20.08.2014.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
ITA No.3507/M/2013
4 M/s. Shree Par Fragrance Private Limited
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy// [
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.