Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Electronic Corporation Of Tamilnadu ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 July, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE Dr. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 1594/Mds/2008
Assessment Year : 2003-04
The Deputy Commissioner M/s.Electronic Corporation,
of Income-tax, VVVs of Tamilnadu Limited,
Company Circle-II(1), 692, Anna Salai, MHU
Chennai-34. Complex, Nandanam,
(Appellant) Chennai - 600 035.
PAN - AAACE1670K
(Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Anirudh Rai, IRS, CIT
Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Date of hearing : 10th July, 2012
Date of pronouncement : 10th July, 2012
ORDER
PER Dr. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT This appeal filed by the Revenue relates to the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII at Chennai dated :- 2 -: ITA 1594/08 28.3.2008. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The first ground raised by the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in holding that the loss on investments written off by the assessee of `2,04,90,274/- should be allowed as a deduction, treating it as business loss. The second ground raised by the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in restricting the disallowance of prior period expenses to ` 1,45,371/-.
3. Shri Anirudh Rai, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax appearing for the Revenue submitted that these issues have been considered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench in assessee's own case for earlier assessment year 2001- 02 through their order dated 11.1.2008 passed in ITA No.1112/Mds/2006. The learned Commissioner has filed a copy of the said Tribunal order before us.
4. Shri S. Sridhar, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that similar issues were considered and decided by very same Madras Tribunal in the :- 3 -: ITA 1594/08 case of M/s. V.D.Swamy and Co. Ltd. in ITA No.252/Mds/95 dated 23.2.2004 which should have been followed by the Tribunal while deciding the issues for the assessment year 2001-02. He explained that the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2001-02, relied on by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax, has not considered the above binding decision of the co- ordinate Bench delivered in the case of M/s. V.D.Swamy and Co. Ltd. He further contended that the Tribunal in their order for the assessment year 2001-02 has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, to hold against the assessee, rendered in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar (240 ITR 552). The facts and circumstances of the said case of M/s. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar are entirely different from the facts of the present case and the said decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has been referred to by the Tribunal out of context. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Vinayaka Pictures (161 ITR 65) and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Danjibai Bardhanwala vs. CIT (130 ITR 94). He, therefore, submitted that the issues may not be decided against the assessee only for the reason that the :- 4 -: ITA 1594/08 Tribunal has decided the issues against the assessee for the earlier assessment year 2001-02.
5. We heard both sides in detail. The very same issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal have also been raised for the earlier assessment year 2001-02 in ITA No.1112/Mds/2006. The Tribunal allowed the said appeal of the Revenue through their order dated 11.1.2008. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee against the value of investments written off. The Tribunal also held that the prior period expenditure has rightly been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. As the issues are squarely covered by the order of the co-ordinate Bench, we are bound to follow the said order, even though, the assessee may have its own arguments based on different case laws. Even if the arguments of the assessee carry much conviction, it is not within our jurisdiction to sit up in judgment on an order passed by a co- ordinate Bench. Such jurisdiction is available only for the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we follow the earlier order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02 and :- 5 -: ITA 1594/08 hold that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the two claims agitated by the Revenue in this appeal. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on these issues are set aside.
7. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 10th of July, 2012 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(V.DURGA RAO) (Dr. O.K.NARAYANAN)
Judicial Member Vice-President
Chennai,
Dated the 10th July, 2012
mpo*
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR
6. GF