Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Mds Wind Frms Private Limited, Pollachi vs Ito Corporate Ward 2, Coimbatore on 12 May, 2022
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 'डी' ायपीठ चे ई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी महावीर िसंह, उपा23 एवं माननीय ,ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,ले खा सद; के सम3। BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON'BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं ./ ITA No.649/Chny/2018 ( िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. MDS Wind Farms Pvt. Ltd. ITO, बनाम/ 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street Corporate Ward-2, Pollachi - 642 001. Vs. Coimbatore.
थायी ले खा सं ./जीआइ आर सं ./PAN/GIR No. AAHCM-8744-M (अ पीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar (CA) - Ld. AR थ की ओरसे /Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) -Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05-05-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12-05-2022 Date of Pronouncement आदे श / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore [CIT(A)] dated 07-12-2017 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 15-02-2016. The Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is denial of deduction u/s 80-IA. It was submitted that the erstwhile firm Meenakshi ITA No.649/Chny/2018 -2- Distribution Service got converted into a corporate entity and it was not a case of splitting-up or reconstruction of business as wrongly understood by lower authorities. In the said background, Ld. AR pleaded to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration on the ground that no independent findings have been rendered in the impugned order. To support the argument, Ld. AR placed on record the details of partnership and company as under: -
DETAILS OF PARTNERSHIP / COMPANY Date Name of PAN No. Partners / Nature of Remarks the Firm / Shareholders Business Company 29.09.2007 Meenakshi AAOFM6571E V. Ramanathan 1. Pharmaceutical Refer Page 2 Distribution C. Kannathal Retailing Service N. Bhuvaneswari 2. Windmill T. Kalyani 11.03.2012 Deed of AAOFM6571E V.Ramanathan 1. Pharmaceutical Reconstitution of Reconstituti V.Narayanan Retailing (included existing firm with on of old V.Chinniah in objects but never admission of firm and T.Kalyani carried on) new partners and name RM.Vasanthi 2. Windmill change of name.
change as N.Bhuvaneswari
MDS Wind C.Kannathal (Refer pages 11
Farms and 15)
(Formerly
known as
Meenakshi
Distribution
Service
with PAN:
AAOFM657
1E)
23.03.2012 MDS Wind AAHCM8744M V.Ramanathan Wind Energy MOA refers to the
Farms Pvt. V.Narayanan Generation and partnership deed
Ltd. V.Chinniah Sale dated 29.09.2007
[Conversion T.Kalyani and the deed
of MDS RM.Vasanthi dated 11.03.2012
Wind N.Bhuvaneswari for change in name
Farms C.Kannathal and admission of
under Part partners
IX of (Refer pages 19
the and 20)
Companies
Act, 1956]
ITA No.649/Chny/2018
-3-
The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the relevant facts are not available on record. Having gone through the orders of lower authorities, our adjudication would be as under.
2. The assessee being resident corporate entity was assessed u/s 143(3) on 15.02.2016. The assessee was engaged in the business of wind energy generation and sale. The assessee company was formed on 23.03.2012 and it claimed deduction u/s 80-IA for Rs.57.55 Lacs. However, Ld. AO denied the same on the allegation that the assessee did not fulfil the conditions of Sec.80-IA(3) as well as Sec.80-IA(5). Another issue that cropped up was claim of higher depreciation while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB. The Ld. AO denied the same. Though the assessee preferred further appeal before first appellate authority, however, the Ld. CIT(A) merely endorsed the stand of Ld. AO in paras 5 & 6 of the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us,
3. After going through the impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has not rendered any independent findings and merely endorsed the view of Ld. AO. Keeping in view the submissions made before us, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore both the issues back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to demonstrate that it was entitled for deduction u/s 80-IA and also justify claim of higher depreciation u/s 115JB. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.
ITA No.649/Chny/2018 -4-4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12th May, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
उपा23 /VICE PRESIDENT लेखासद; / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे*ई / Chennai; िदनां क / Dated : 12-05-2022 EDN/-
आदे श की Wितिलिप अ 8ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF