TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the assessee could not succeed. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 777 & 778/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2018 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM And Shri Bhagchand, AM Assessee by : Shri Suresh Ojha ( Advocate ) Revenue by : Dr. Aashwini D. Hosmani ( JCIT ) ORDER Per : Vijay Pal Rao, JM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur both dated 21.08.2017 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2010-11 2012-13. The assessee has raised the common grounds in both these appeals. The grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2010-11 are as under:- 1. That the order passed by the CIT(A)-III Jaipur is illegal and against the law. 2. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is against the judicial decorum and discipline because the judgment of Supreme Court referred in 247 CTR page 353 was not followed by the AO as well as by the CIT(A). 3. That the C.I.T. (A) should have decided the each grounds of memo of appeal as per the judgment of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court reported in 249 ITR 323 where as ground no. not decided. Further the arguments were not appreciated, which should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fits of the undertakings by following the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (Supra) as well as the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, so far the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the decisions relied upon by the assesse in case of Topman Exports vs. CIT (Supra) as well as decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Art and Craft Export Art (Supra). He has further contented the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Chand Modi 249 ITR 323 has held that non adjudication of grounds raised by the assessee renders the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) as illegal. The Ld. AR has forcefully contended that each ground taken in the appeal should have been decided. The question whether each ground of appeal has been dealt with or not has to be taken into consideration as held by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of M/s Shri Ram Company DBIT Appeal No. 101/2008 dated 28.7.2008. 3.1 Thus, the Ld. AR has contended the impugned order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case. This is also required to maintain the judicial discipline on the part of the lower authorities and Courts including this Tribunal to follow the binding precedents of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court when the decision is render in assessee s own case. Thus, we find that though the assessee raised various contentions before the Ld. CIT(A), however, when the issue is covered by the binding precedent of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case then the Ld. CIT(A) was not required to discuss each and every contentions of the assessee but to decide the issue by following the binding precedents. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) recorded all the arguments advanced by the assessee in the impugned order in para 5.2 and then decided the issue in para 5.3 as under:- 5.2 During the appellate proceeding the appellant has filed written submission as under and also argued the case on the same basis. That order passed by the Assessing Officer is illegal and against the law. In this connection, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer, at the time of finalizing assessment, not accepted the grant of deduction claimed u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls (India) ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 August, 2012 the relevant few portion are being reproduced hereunder: Therefore, the start point of the limitation for claiming the benefit flowing from section 10B would commence from the year of manufacture or production of the undertaking. If the conditions prescribed in the section are not satisfied in the year of commencement of production, we hold that in the absence of any disturbance in respect of relief granted in initial year, there was no legal justification to disturb the continuous deduction of section 10B in any of the subsequent assessment year. The above order of the Hon'ble Tribunal is crystal clear in respect of fact that if in the initial year the deduction has been claimed cannot be disturbed in the succeeding year. The ratio of the order of the Tribunal is applicable in toto. I further want to draw your kind attention towards the order of Tribunal in case of Samruddhi Industries Ltd. delivered by the ITAT Pune bench in which the Hon'ble bench is also of the same view. I am reproducing hereunder the relevant portion of the order of Tribunal (Para 14) as under for your ready reference: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the IT Act, 1961 has been accepted by the Revenue in the earlier years. No argument is advanced to establish that the said decision of the Tribunal for the earlier years is erroneous. In these circumstances, question (a) and (b) raised by the Revenue cannot be entertained. From the perusal of above you will observe that it is a rule of law that if the exemption / deduction have been allowed is initial year in that case same cannot be disturbed in the subsequent year. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the order of the Assessing Officer is still a valid order neither reverse nor stayed by any of the competent court therefore in these fact and circumstances the order is a good order and following the same the deduction claimed may kindly be allowed. It will be worthwhile to mention and draw your kind attention further towards the following order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal delivered in case of Sint. Urmila Bhandari ITA Nos. 766, 2593/Del/2013 by the ITAT, Delhi Bench H New Delhi wherein in the same set of circumstances the Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the department. The relevant portion is bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) has clearly held that the receipts of duty drawback and DEFB do not form part of the net profit of eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of the deduction under section 80I/80IB of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the appellant own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 held that the decision of the Supreme Court of Liberty India is applicable on the appellant. I am the view that Duty Drawback amount of ₹ 6,44,740/- is not form part of net profit of eligible under taking for the purpose of the deduction u/s 80IB of the LT. Act. Therefore the AO rightly rejected the claim of the appellant u/s 80IB on Duty Drawback. Hence I confirm the action of the AO. These grounds are not allowed. 5.1 The Ld. AR has not disputed this fact that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case for the AY 2008-09 as decided this issue against the assessee by following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the initial year but has taken a difference stands in the subsequent years. Further, a year before us is not the first year in which the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB in respect of Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojana and Drawback Duty has been denied but this was denied in the earlier years and for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the matter has been carried to the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court but the assessee could not succeed. Hence, we do not find any substance in the ground no. 4 of the assessee s appeal same is dismissed. 7. Ground nos. 5 to 6 are only in support of the ground no. 1 to 3 and therefore no specific adjudication is required. 7.1 As it is apparent from the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal as well as contentions and arguments advanced by the Ld. AR before us that the assessee is more interested in criticizing the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) than the merits of the issue. Though the assessee is having a legal right to challenge the impugned order to keep the issue alive however, the assessee has not raised the ground on the merits of the issue but the present appeal has been filed only to criticize the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
