IN INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I T.A. No. 1751/Mds/2016 Assessment Year :2012-13 Joint Commissioner of M/s. Blow Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax (OSD), Vs. No. 55-D, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(2), Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACB3145L] ( Appellant) ( Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Respondent by : Shri N. Vijaya Kumar, C.A. Date of hearing : 06.09.2016 Date of Pronounce ment : 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, dated 10.03.2016 relevant to assessment year 2012-13. Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal, however, crux of issue is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction under section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.1751/M/16 2 assessee is company, engaged in business of manufacture of plastic cans and containers, filed its return of income on 26.09.2012 admitting its income of .13,20,51,580/- after claiming deduction under section 80IA of Act in respect of windmill I and windmill II at .51,25,877/- and .1,34,08,417/- respectively. case was taken for scrutiny through CASS and assessment under section 143(3) of Act was completed on 29.01.2015, wherein, Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 80-IA of Act on windmills. 2.2 During course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by Assessing Officer that assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-IA of Act relying upon decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT reported in 231 CTR (Mad) 368 [2010]. However Assessing Officer opined that since Revenue is in appeal and matter is pending before Hon. Apex Court, he is justified in disallowing claim of deduction of windmill I and windmill II at .51,25,877/- and .1,34,08,417/- respectively under section 80-IA of Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. On appeal by assessee, ld.CIT (A) decided issue in favour of assessee by following decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT (supra), wherein, it was held that:- 3 I.T.A. No.1751/M/16 i) Each eligible unit of industrial undertaking has to be considered as if such eligible business where only source of income of assessee during previous year relevant to initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year upto period prescribed under Act for benefit of section 80IA of Act. ii) That initial assessment year referred to section 80-IA(5) of Act would mean year in which assessee opts in selecting year of claiming relief under section 80-IA of Act. iii) That unabsorbed depreciation and carry forward losses of earlier years which had already been set off against other income cannot be notionally carry forward and taken into consideration for purpose of computation of deduction under section 80-IA of Act. 4. Before us, by relying on assessment order ld. DR submitted that Assessing Officer had arrived at this decision out of abundant caution, because Revenue has carried matter before Hon ble Apex Court and matter was pending. ld. A.R. on other hand, relied on decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) and prayed that order of ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 5. We have heard both parties and carefully perused materials available on record. From facts of case it appears that Assessing Officer was of view that since Revenue was on appeal against decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in case Velayudhaswamy 4 I.T.A. No.1751/M/16 Spinning Mills P. Ltd (supra) before Hon ble Apex Court, he need not follow that decision. He did not realize that mere filing of SLP before Apex Court is not valid ground for not following judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court. Further, it is not case of Revenue that judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in case Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd (supra) is stayed by Hon ble Apex Court. It is pertinent to mention that in absence of any stay granted by Hon ble Apex Court against operation of judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court, all lower judiciaries as well as quasi judicial authorities are bound to follow decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. Since ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed decision of decision of Jurisdictional High Court cited supra and held issues in favour of assessee, we do not find it necessary to interfere with orders of ld.CIT(A). Therefore we hereby confirm orders of ld. CIT (A). 6. In result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 23.09.2016 Vm/- 5 I.T.A. No.1751/M/16 Copy to: 1. Appellant, 2. Respondent, 3. CIT(A), 4. CIT, 5. DR & 6. GF. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai v. M/s. Blow Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd