Appeal allowed on consistency grounds for Assessment Year 2012-13

The appeal was filed against the CIT (Appeals) order for Assessment Year 2012-13, challenging various issues including the allowance of full deduction under section 80IA and apportionment of common expenses. The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Appeals) order and restored the matter back to his file for a fresh decision, aligning with the pending decision for the previous assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistency in decisions across assessment years and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes without further adjudication.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against CIT (Appeals) order for Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. Allowance of full deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Maintenance of separate books of accounts for windmills.
4. Apportionment of common expenses.
5. Disallowance made by CIT (Appeals) and its deletion.
6. Restoration of the matter back to CIT (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The grounds raised by the assessee included opposition to the order, non-allowance of full deduction under section 80IA, maintenance of separate books of accounts for windmills, objection to apportionment of common expenses, and challenge against arbitrary disallowances. The appellant also requested the appeal to be allowed, with the option to add, alter, amend, or delete any grounds during the hearing.

2. During the hearing, it was noted that in a previous assessment year, the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the file of CIT (Appeals) for a fresh decision. As the issue was still pending before CIT (Appeals) for that year, both parties agreed that the matter for the present year should also go back to CIT (Appeals) for a decision simultaneously with the pending decision for the previous assessment year. Consequently, the order of CIT (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was restored back to his file for a fresh decision in alignment with the decision on the issue for the previous assessment year.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that if the issue for the previous assessment year was already decided by CIT (Appeals) by the time the order reached his file for the present year, then the decision for the present year should align with the final decision made for the previous assessment year. Therefore, no further adjudication was deemed necessary at the present stage, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the procedural aspect of remanding the matter back to CIT (Appeals) for a fresh decision, ensuring alignment with the decision on the issue for the previous assessment year. The decision highlighted the need for consistency in handling the issue across different assessment years and emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in tax matters.

---