TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posal of the assessee therein was accepted by the Government on certain conditions, which were duly complied with by the assessee therein and that there may not be any specific agreement, but the sequence of events showed that the assessee was providing CFS facility in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government. Therefore, it was held that there was no need to insist for specific execution of agreements. The court also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of United Liner Agencies of India Private Limited [ 2013 (9) TMI 302 - ITAT MUMBAI ] Tribunal ought to have applied the decision in the assessee's own case [ 2012 (6) TMI 318 - ITAT CHENNAI ] . In any event, since the matter had been sent back to the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. If the identical issue had arisen in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years and the matter travelled up to the Tribunal and the assessee had succeeded before the Tribunal (the appeal of the Department was dismissed), then the decision of the Tribunal is binding on the authorities, which are anterior to that of the Tribunal and ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer in spite of the availability of the approval/agreement as contemplated by this court to make eligible for the claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act, which fact was not disputed by the Revenue proving perversity in recording the findings of fact in relation thereto ? and (iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not following the earlier decisions rendered by them in granting such deduction for the very same infrastructure facility, namely, container freight station reckoned as port/inland port within the scope of section 80-IA(4) of the Act, which completely defied the principles of judicial discipline and rule of consistency ? 4. On a perusal of the common order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue and find out as to whether the assessee obtained any approval or entered into any agreement with Government or Government agency as in the case of CIT v. A. L. Logistics Private Limited [2015] 374 ITR 609 (Mad)-T. C. A. No. 1031 of 2014, dated December 23, 2014. 5. We are at a loss to understand as to how the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Chennai, passed for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 wherein agreeing with the Assessing Officer's action of excluding warehousing income from CFS income he set aside the assessment of assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 for excluding the warehousing income from CFS receipts and considering the income and expenditure on Numbal plot and the director's travelling expenses after due verification of the facts. I have also considered the counter submission of the authorized representative thereon. Now I proceed to decide the issue as under. The approving guidelines expect that adequate warehousing facilities should be provided by the CFS operator. In fact, the definition of CFS means : 'Inland container depot (ICD)/container freight station (CFS) has been defined as A common user facility with public authority status equipped with fixed installations and offering services for handling and temporary storage of import/export laden and empty containers carried under customs transit by any applicable mode of transport placed under customs control. All the activities related to clearance of goods for home use, ware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our application dated June 9, 1994 on the above subject and to say that the Government has approved your proposal for setting up a container freight station at Numbal village, Madras for handling export cargo only. The approval is subject to the following terms and conditions : (i) Proper infrastructure would be created by you keeping in view the norms given in parts A and B of the guidelines for setting up inland container depots/container freight stations (ICDs/CFSs) and to the satisfaction of the concerned Collector of Customs and Central Excise within a period of six months from the date of issue of this let ter. (ii) Necessary bond and guarantees would be executed by you with the concerned Collector of Customs and Central Excise ; (iii) The approval would be subject to cancellation in the event of violation of the customs and other laws of the land and Rules. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) (N. D. Agnihotri), Joint Director. Minimum level of facilities required at ICDs/CFSs 'The following minimum level of facilities are required to be pro vided at ICDs/CFSs- (a) Provision of standard pavement for heavy duty equipment for use in the operational and stacki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of the appellant is allowable. The Assessing Officer has been wrongly influenced by the fact that warehousing facilities may be situated out side CFS area also and such warehousing facilities do not get any deduction. The Assessing Officer is very correct that warehousing facilities alone may not get any deduction but when they are part of CFS as a necessary infrastructure as discussed above and such CFSs can come into existence and operate only if it provides minimum infrastructure facility as only then sanction for the CFS status is granted then such warehousing facility is different from the standalone warehousing facility operated outside CFS. In fact, the situation is like that there can be a warehouse without CFS but not a CFS without warehousing as can be seen from the notification pertaining to the appellant where it is part of minimum level of infrastructure. Hence, in such a situation warehousing income, in my opinion, has to be treated as part of CFS income and eligible for deduction under section 80-IA. Therefore, the appellant succeeds on this ground in both the years. The facts in all the years remained same and static. The reasons given by the learned Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Government or the State Government or a local authority or any statutory body for being entitled to claim the benefit of section 80-IA(4)(i) of the Act. After taking note of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce Infrastructure Division vide Notification No. 16/6/2003-Infra-I dated May 27, 2003 and the letter received by the assessee therein from the director, it was pointed out that the proposal of the assessee therein was accepted by the Government on certain conditions, which were duly complied with by the assessee therein and that there may not be any specific agreement, but the sequence of events showed that the assessee was providing CFS facility in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government. Therefore, it was held that there was no need to insist for specific execution of agreements. The court also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of United Liner Agencies of India Private Limited v. Joint CIT (OSD) I. T. A. Nos. 273 and 275/Mum/2013 dated June 28, 2013. 11. In our considered view, the Tribunal ought to have applied the decision in the assessee's own case. In a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
