M/s. Chandan Rice & Pulse Mills, Anand V. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1081/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72876 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUPESH R SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Additional depreciation
• Section: 32; 263; 2

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.1081/AHD/2013 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL 49, GIDC KANSARI KHAMBHAT 388 630 / VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I BARODA ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABFC 1682 M ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RUPESH R.SHAH, A.R. ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 6/1/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/01/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, BARODA (CIT FOR SHORT) DATED 26/02/2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT-I, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE HAS PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DATED 26-02 -2013 ON THE BASIS OF NON-JURISDICTIONAL KERALA HIGH COURT O LD DECISION IN THE CASE OF M.NARAYANAN NAMBIYAR VS. STATE OF KERAL A (1979 44 STC 191 KER) DELIVERED UNDER DIFFERENT LAW AND ALSO WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE DEFINITION OF TERM MANUFACTURE P RESCRIBED IN ITA NO.1081/AHD /2013 CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL VS.CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - SECTION 2(29BA) OF IT ACT THEREFORE ENTIRE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2. TRHE LD.CIT-I, BARODA, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS FURTHER ERRED IN DISALLOWING LEGITIMATELY CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.9,79,709/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 32(IIA) OF THE IT ACT AND D IRECTING ASSESSING OFFICER TO WITHDRAW THE EXCESS DEPRECIATI ON ON THE BASIS OF NON-JURISDICTIONAL KERALA HIGH COURT OLD D ECISION OF M.NARAYANAN NAMBIYAR VS. STATE OF KERALA (1979 44 S TC 191 KER) UNDER DIFFERENT LAW AND FURTHER NOT APPRECIATI NG SUBMISSION MADE BY APPELLANT EXPLAINING THEREAFTER VARIOUS DEC ISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT LAYING DOWN PRINCIPLE OF WHAT IS CALLED MANUFACTURER, PRODUCTION, ARTICLES OR THINGS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ACTION OF LRD CIT(I), BARODA UNDER SECTION 263 FOR ENHANCING INCOME BY DISALLOWING LEG ITIMATE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION TREATING APPELLANT IS NOT E NGAGED IN MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WITHOUT KNOWING THE PRODUCTI ON PROCESS OF RICE MILL NOT PERMISSIBLE EITHER IN LAW OR ON FA CT. THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LD.CIT-I, BARODA HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(IIA) FOR CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N FURTHER SUM OF 20% OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLAN T IS ALSO APPLICABLE FOR THE MACHINERY AND PLANT FOR INSTALLE D FOR RICE MILL. 4. THE LRD CIT-I, BARODA, HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN PASSING THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT A ND THAT HE FURTHER ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIO NS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPEL LANT BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION IS IN CLEA R BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 5. THE LEARNED AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT OF ORDER OF CIT( I), BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN LEVYIN G INTEREST U/S.234B/C/D OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. APART FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1081/AHD /2013 CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL VS.CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - THE APPELLANT AHS FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE TRIBU NAL ON 18-04-2013 VIDE APPEAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO: 1081/AHD-2013 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF C IT-I, BARODA. YOU APPELLANT HEREBY PRAYS THAT FOLLOWING PRECISE A DDITIONAL GROUND MAY BE ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. GROUND NO.1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-1, BARODA GROSSLY ERRED IN EXERCISING REVERSION ARY JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE IT ACT AND IN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER S.263 OF THE IT ACT DT. 26-02-2013 WHEREBY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WITHDRAW THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF RS.9,79,709/- ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 02-11-2010. THAT ON MERITS THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT ARE VAGUE AND CONTRARY TO LAW. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 02/11/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) ACCEPTED THE DECLARED INCOME AND ALLOWED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD.CIT INVOKED THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S.263(1) WAS I SSUED. IN RESPONSE THEREOF, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED T HE HEARING AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. LD.CIT DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE EX CESS DEPRECIATION OF RS.9,79,709/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.1081/AHD /2013 CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL VS.CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT SO FAR AS ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXTRA DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED , THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE IT AT AHMEDABAD BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT. HENCE, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT AHM EDABAD RENDERED IN ITA NO.2205/AHD/2010 IN THE CASE OF M/S.VIJYALAXMI RICE MILLS VS. ITO WARD-6(1), AHMEDABAD. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M.NARAYANAN NAMB IYAR VS. STATE OF KERALA (1979) 44 STC 191 (KER.), DATED 21/03/1979. 3.2. IN REJOINDER, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE JUDGEMENT AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.SR.DR AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT IN THE CASE OF M.NARAYANAN NAMBIYAR(SUPRA)WAS RENDERED IN SALES TAX MATTER AND NOT IN THE INCOME-TAX CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SULTAN & SONS RIC E MILL REPORTED AT (2005) 272 ITR 181 (ALL.), HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY CAR RIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF MANUFACTURING WAS EXAMI NED BY THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.2205/AHD/2010 FOR AY 200 6-07 IN THE CASE ITA NO.1081/AHD /2013 CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL VS.CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - OF M/S.VIJYALAXMI RICE MILLS VS. ITO WARD-6(1), AHM EDABAD, DATED 12/04/2013. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD A S UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. W E HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SHORT ISSUE F OR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT WHETHER ACTIVITY OF A RICE MILL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A MANU FACTURING ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(IIA) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE RELEVANT PR OVISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- SECTION 32 : DEPRECIATION. (1) [IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF (I) BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE, BEING TANGIBLE ASSETS; (II) KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LI CENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE, BEING INTANGIB LE ASSETS, ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1998, OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED F OR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOW ED] . . [(IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (O THER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICL E OR THING, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO TWENTY PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II) : 6.1. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY SHOULD RESULT INTO PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THI NG. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS PER REVENUE, NO NEW ARTICLE OR THING WAS MANUFACTURED O R PRODUCED. AS PER LD.DR, RICE HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SIMPLY THE PROCESS OF PADDY WHICH SEPA RATES RICE FROM THE OUTER-COVER. THE REVENUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON FEW DECISIONS AS ALREADY CITED-SUPRA. THE DECISION OF GEM INDIA MANUFACTURING CO. (2011) 249 ITR 307(SC)[SUPRA] IS IN THE CONTEXT OF ACTIVITY OF CUTTING AND POLISHING OF DIA MONDS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPRESSED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL O N RECORD, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE POLISHED DIAMONDS IS A NEW ARTICLE OR THING WHI CH IS THE RESULT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION. IT WAS THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CUTTING AND POLISHING OF RAW-CONCOCT DIAMOND IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/ S.80-I OF THE ACT. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT CUTTING AND POLISHIN G OF DIAMOND IS BASICALLY ON ACTIVITY OF CHISEL THE STONE, HOWEVER THE ACTIVITY OF RICE M ILL CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AKIN TO THE SAID ACTIVITY PERFORMED IN DIAMOND INDUSTRY. WE HA VE ALSO EXAMINED THE DECISION OF LUCKY MINMAT (P) LTD. (2001) 116 TAXMAN 01 (SC)[SUP RA] :: (2000) 245 ITR 830(SC), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF MINING OF MARBLE BLOCKS AND CUTTING AND SIZING THE SAME. THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS THUS, NOT ENTITLED FOR REL IEF U/S.80HH OF THE ACT. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD.AR, THAT THIS DECISION OF LUCKY MINMAT (PVT.) LTD. HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ITA NO.1081/AHD /2013 CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL VS.CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - CASE OF ITO VS. ARIHANT TILES AND MARBLES P.LTD. (2 010) 320 ITR 79 (SC) AND THEREUPON IT WAS HELD THAT SAWING MARBLE BLOCKS IN TO SLABS AND TILES AND POLISHING AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION. LIKEWISE, THE DECISION(S) OF INDIAN HOTELS CO.LTD. (2001) 112 TAXMAN 46 (SC) AND VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES (P) LTD. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC) ARE IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT ACTIVI TY, THEREFORE THAT ACTIVITY WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE COURT AS A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. IN THE CASE OF VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES (P) LTD. THE COURT HAS HEL D THAT THE FORMATION OF CHICKS IS A NATURAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROCESS WHICH IS NOT AKIN TO PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HELD AS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAK ING NOR ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING, THEREFORE HELD AS NOT ENTITLED TO INVESTMENT LICENCE U/S.80-HH/80-I OF THE ACT. EVEN THE DECISION OF B.G.CHITALE (2008) 1 15 ITD 97 (PUNE)(SB)(SUPRA) IS IN RESPECT OF THE PROCESS OF PASTEURIZATION OF MILK WH ICH WAS HELD AS NOT A MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAI MING OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-I OF THE ACT. LD.DR HAS ALSO CITED THE DECISION OF ITAT HYD ERABAD BENCH B IN THE CASE OF CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LTD. (2012) 27 TAXMANN.COM 237 (HYD.)(SUPRA) BUT AGAIN THE MACHINERY WAS USED FOR MILK CHILLING AND PASTE URIZATION, THEREFORE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT A MANUFACTURING OF ARTICL E OR THING. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DECISIONS QUOTED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR TO BE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE ON THE ACTIVITY CARRIED O UT BY THE ASSESSEE. MORE PARTICULARLY, THE DECISION OF CIT VS. SULTAN AND SO NS RICE MILL (2005) 272 ITR 181 (ALLA). (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING AN AUTOMA TIC RICE PLANT TO MANUFACTURE RICE AND RICE-BRAN. ON PERUSAL, WE HAVE NOTICED TH AT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY RECORDED IN THE SAID PRECEDENT WAS THAT THE PADDY W AS STORED AT ONE POINT OF THE MACHINE AND WHEN THE MACHINE WAS STARTED, THE PADDY SUCKED BY THE MACHINE AUTOMATICALLY AND THE RICE AND RICE-BRAN CAME OUT O F THE OTHER END OF THE MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE MANUFACTURING PRO CESS STARTED AFTER THE POINT OF PURCHASE OF PADDY. THE PADDY IS CLEANED AND DRIED AND THEREAFTER BROUGHT AND PUT INTO THE MACHINE. THE RICE COMES OUT FROM THE MAC HINE ALONG WITH THE BROKEN RICE. THEREAFTER, THERE IS FURTHER CLEANING OF RICE TO M AKE IT FIT FOR MARKETING. SO IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY WAS AN INTEGRAL PA RT OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF RICE. IT WAS FINALLY HELD THAT, QUOTE WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE VARIOUS PROCESSES STARTING FROM PURCHASE OF THE RAW MATERIAL AND TILL THE SALE OF FINISHED GOODS FROM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND THE WORKERS AND LABOURERS EMPLOYED IN THESE PROCESSES ARE WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE MANU FACTURING PROCESS. UNQUOTE. THIS DECISION IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE ON THE MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS DECISION BEING A DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COUR T, HENCE JUDICIAL HIERARCHY REQUIRES TO FOLLOW THE SAME. 8. BEFORE WE CONCLUDE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT IN THE CASE OF ARIHANT TILES AND MARBELS P.LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC) [SUPRA], THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LATEST INSERTION IN SEC TION 2(29)BA VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01/04/2009. AS PER THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURE PRESCRIBES THEREIN MEANS A CHANGE IN A NON-LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING (A) RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING IN TO A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER AND USE; OR (B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE O R THING WITH A DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STRUCTURE. FINALLY, THE HO NBLE APEX COURT HAS OPINED THAT, QUOTE THE TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER MANUFACTUR E CAN BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IS WHETHER THE COMMODITY, WHICH IS SUBJECTED TO A PROCESS CAN NO LONGER BE ITA NO.1081/AHD /2013 CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL VS.CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - REGARDED AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY BUT IS RECOGNIZE D IN TRADE AS A NEW AND DISTINCT COMMODITY. THE WORD PRODUCTION, WHEN USED IN JUX TAPOSITION WITH THE WORD MANUFACTURE, TAKES IN BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE NEW GOODS BY A PROCESS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE. THE WORD PRODUC TION TAKES IN ALL THE BY- PRODUCTS, INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS AND RESIDUAL PRODUC TS WHICH EMERGE IN THE COURSE OF MANUFACTURE OF GOODS. UNQUOTE. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE RICE IS MANUFACTURED/PRODUCED AFTER A CUMBERSOME PROCESS AP PLIED ON PADDY AND THE COMMODITY SO MANUFACTURED CANNOT BE REGARDED OR USE D AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY BUT RICE IS THE DISTINCT COMMODITY THAN THE RAW-MAT ERIAL, I.E. PADDY EITHER CONSIDERING THE USE OR CONSIDERING MARKETABILITY OF THE PRODUCT . RESULTANTLY, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION. THE CLAIM IS HEREBY ALLOWED. THUS, GROUND IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S.VIJYALAXMI RICE MILLS VS. ITO WARD-6(1), AHMEDABAD(SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH, WE ALLO W THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE AO IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/ 01 /2014 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1081/AHD /2013 CHANDAN RICE & PULSE MILL VS.CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 6.1.14(DICTATION-PAD 7 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.1.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.17.1.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 17.1.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER