TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration. Thus, the initial assessment year constitutes the assessment year in which the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act is first claimed by the assessee after exercising his option as per the provisions of Section 80IA(2) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the relief granted by the CIT(A) on this issue does not require any interference - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1374/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2019 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM For the Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak. For the Revenue : Mrs. Nanditha Kanchan. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 3, Pune dated 28.02.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of Tobacco and Power generation from Windmill. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 declaring total income at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act and accordingly denied the claim of deduction. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who following the order of her Predecessor and the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA Nos.1382 and 1383/PUN/2015 order dated 16.10.2017) for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : 6.3. DECISION :- I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the appellant as above carefully. The facts and circumstances of the case submission made in respect of this ground has been considered. Identical issue was for adjudication in appellant's case before the Pune ITAT for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2010-11, which was answered in appellant's favour. Further, for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Ld CIT (Appeals)-11 vide common appellate order No. Pn/CIT(A)-11/DCIT Cen. Cir 1(1)/PN/116/2014-15 Pn/CIT(A)- 11/DCIT Cen. Cir.1(1)/PN/211/2014-15 dated 17.8.2015 has held as under: 9.4 I have considered the appellant's arguments. I have also gone through the AO's order and the decision of my prede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ystems Ltd. 230 CTR 206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. ,CIT(A). The term business used in sub-sec(s) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction undertaking or. Enterprise as such is to be considered. Sec.80IA(2) is charging sections for determining basic eligibility and there is no mention of word business . Sub-sec(5) of Sec.80IA speaks of business but same is to be construed as business of undertaking or Enterprise as referred to in Subsec.(2) of Sec.80IA. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statutory provision that they are to be interpreted harmoniously to make workable to give intended results. Hence, as rightly held by Ld. CIT(A) term business used in sec. 80IA(5) is to be construed and understood to mean business or undertaking or enterprise . In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) in his well reasoned order has rightly held that every unit constitute a separate undertaking engaged in the eligible business and losses from one unit cannot be set off against the profits. Another unit engaged in the same b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the issue has been decided in favour of assessee. He has placed on record the copy of the aforesaid order and pointed to the relevant findings of the Tribunal and submitted that since the year under appeal are identical to A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13, the issue be decided accordingly. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. The claim of deduction was denied by AO but when the matter was carried before Ld.CIT(A), she following the order of her predecessor in assessee s own case for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 allowed the claim of assessee. We find that identical issue arose in the case of assessee in A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 before ITAT in ITA Nos.1382 1383/PUN/2015 vide order dt.16.10.2017 (supra) and the issue was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s favour by observing as under : 6. We perused the facts of the case as well as legal proposition emanating fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme of the section 80IA(2), it speaks about the undertaking or enterprise and not the business of the assessee. Admittedly, three wind mills at the 3 locations are independently operated and the financial results are separately worked out. As per sub-sec.(5) of section 80IA, for computing the deduction u/s 80IA(2), the eligible business is to be treated as the only source of income. Sub-sec.(5) of section 80IA has been explained by the Hon'ble High Court and Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd. 230 CTR 206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term business used in sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction undertaking or Enterprise as such is to be considered. Sec.80IA(2) is charging sections for determining basic eligibility and there is no mention of word business . Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.80IA speaks of business but same is to be construed as business of undertaking or Enterprise as referred to in Sub- sec.(2) of Sec.80IA. It is well settled principle of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee s own case (supra) for A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 (supra.) Brining our attention to para 59 to 65 of the order of Tribunal, which is placed at page No. 16 and 18 of the paper book, Ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal held the issue in favour of the assessee. As such, the assessee has option to choose the initial assessment year. 9. We have heard both parties and perused the said order of the Tribunal and relevant portion is extracted as under: 64. After hearing both the sides, we find the issue as to whether initial assessment year u/s.80IA (5) means year of installation of windmill or year in which the claim of deduction u/s.80IA is first made has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawalla Estate Stud Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd. following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. has observed as under : 13. 65. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
