ACIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Micro Turner, Parwanoo, Chandigarh

ITA 1202/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 120221514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SINGLA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 28; 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1202/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), V M/S MICRO TURNERS, CHANDIGARH. SCO 80-81, IVTH FLOOR, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABFM-5301M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.N.SINGLA DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.8496/- ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON STOCK TRANSFER. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON SCRAP S ALES. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON JOB WOR K CHARGES. 5. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OF . 3. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENC E, NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 4. IN GROUND NO.1, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8496/- ON ACCO UNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUN D. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. DR P LACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V M/S NUCHEM LTD. IN ITA NO. 323 OF 2009 FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V ALOOM EXTRU SIONS LTD. 227 CTR 417. LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIONS WERE DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE ABOVESAID DECISION. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF PROPER APPRECIATION AND READY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT DECISION AS 3 QUOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS FINDINGS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND I FIND THAT THIS CONTROVERSY HAS NOW BEEN SET TO REST BY THE DE CISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V M/S NUCHEM LTD. IN ITA NO. 323 OF 2009, FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT V ALOOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 227 CTR 417 WHEREIN TH E HON'BLE COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : SECTION 43B (MAIN SECTION), WHICH STOOD INSERTED B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 1983, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1,1984 EXPRESSLY COMMENCES WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE, THE UNDERLYING OBJECT BEING TO DISALLOW DEDUCTIONS CLAI MED MERELY BY MAKING A BOOK ENTRY BASED ON THE MERCANTI LE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. AT THE SAME TIME, SECTION 43 B (MAIN SECTION) MADE IT MANDATORY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO GRANT DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER SECTI ON 28 IN THE YEAR IN WHICH TAX, DUTY CESS ETC. IS ACTU ALLY PAID. HOWEVER, PARLIAMENT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FA CT THAT THE ACCOUNTING YEAR OF A COMPANY DID NOT ALWAY S TALLY WITH THE DUE DATES UNDER THE PROVIDENT FUND A CT, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (OCTROI) AND OTHER TAX LA WS. THEREFORE, BY WAY OF THE FIRST PROVISO, AN INCENTIVE/RELAXATION WAS SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN IN RESP ECT OF TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE BY EXPLICITLY STATING THAT I F SUCH TAX, DUTY CESS OR FEE IS PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF FI LING OF THE RETURN UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT (DUE DATE), THE ASSESSEE(S) THEN WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THIS RELAXATION/INCENTIVE WAS RESTRICTED O NLY TO TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE. IT DID NOT APPLY TO CONTRI BUTIONS TO LABOUR WELFARE FUNDS. THE REASON APPEARS TO BE T HAT THE EMPLOYER(S) SHOULD NOT SIT ON THE COLLECTED CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEPRIVE THE WORKMEN OF THE RIGHTF UL BENEFITS UNDER SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATIONS BY DELAY ING PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS. HOWE VER, AS STATED ABOVE, THE SECOND PROVISO RESULTED IN IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS, WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED 4 HEREINABOVE, AND WHICH RESULTED IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2003 DELETING THE SECOND PROVISO AND BRINGING ABOUT UNIFORMITY IN THE FIRST PROVISO BY E QUATING TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE WITH CONTRIBUTIONS TO WELFA RE FUNDS. ONCE THIS INFIRMITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE FIRST PROVISO, THEN IN OUR VIEW, THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, W HICH IS MADE APPLICABLE BY PARLIAMENT ONLY W.E.F. APRIL 1, 2004 WOULD BECOME CURATIVE IN NATURE, HENCE IT WOUL D APPLY, RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. APRIL 1, 1988. SECOND LY, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OFALLIED MOTORS P.LTD . V CIT REPORTED IN (1997) 224 ITR 677 (S.C) THE SCHEME OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT CAME TO BE EXAMINED. IN THAT CASE, THE QUESTION WHICH AROSE FOR DETERMINATION WAS, WHE THER SALES TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PAID AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR BUT WITHIN THE TI ME ALLOWED UNDER THE RELEVANT SALES TAX LAW SHOULD BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT WHILE COMPU TING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ? THAT WAS A CASE WHICH RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85. THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDED ON JUNE 30,1983. T HE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX COLL ECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST QUARTER OF THE RELEVAN T ACCOUNTING YEAR. THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B WHICH, AS STATED ABOVE, WAS INSERTED W. E.F. APRIL 1,1984. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE FIRST PROVISO WHICH CAME INTO FORCE W.E.F. APRIL 1,1988 W AS NOT ON THE STATUTE BOOK WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS P.LTD. (1977) 224 ITR 677 . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH TH E FIRST PROVISO CAME TO BE INSERTED W.E.F. APRIL 1 19 88, IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THAT PROVISO BECAUSE IT OPERATED RETROSPECTIVELY FROM APRIL 1,1984 WHEN SEC TION 43B STOOD INSERTED. THIS IS HOW THE QUESTION OF RETROSPECTIVITY AROSE IN ALLIED MOTORS P.LTD. (1997 ) 224 ITR 677. THIS COURT, IN ALLIED MOTORS P.LTD. HELD THAT WHEN A PROVISO IS INSERTED TO REMEDY UNINTENDED 5 CONSEQUENCES AND TO MAKE THE SECTION WORKABLE, A PROVISO WHICH SUPPLIES AN OBVIOUS OMISSION IN THE SECTION AND WHICH PROVISO IS REQUIRED TO BE READ IN TO THE SECTION TO GIVE THE SECTION A REASONABLE INTERPRETA TION, IT COULD BE READ AS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION, PARTIC ULARLY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SECTION AS A WHOLE. ACCORDING LY, THIS COURT IN ALLIED MOTORS P.LTD. HELD THAT THE FIRST P ROVISO WAS CURATIVE IN NATURE, HENCE RETROSPECTIVE IN OPER ATION W.E.F. APRIL 1,1988. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE ONCE A GAIN THAT BY THE FINANCE ACT,2003 NOT ONLY THE SECOND PR OVISO IS DELETED BUT EVEN THE FIRST PROVISO IS SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED BY BRINGING ABOUT UNIFORMITY. 6. THE REVENUE EXPRESSED GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) IN GROUND NO.2 IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCE OF DE DUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON STOCK TRANSFERS. IT WAS STATED IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA 553/CHD/2010 ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 DATED 18.10.2010. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE HO N'BLE TRIBUNAL AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY SUCH FINDINGS. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DENIED WITH RESPECT TO THE STOCK TRANSFER OF RS.2,48,87,941/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE STOCK HAS BEEN MOVED TO GURGAON UNIT EITHER IN RAW FORM OR IN SEMI-FINISHED FORM AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A MANUFACTURING PROCESS. 6 IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO MANUFACTURING WAS CARRIED OUT ON SUCH STOCK WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED FROM PARWANOO UNIT TO GURGAON UNIT. IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE DEVOID OF ANY FACTUAL SUPPORT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE POSITION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT ITS MANUFACTURING UNIT IS LOCATED AT PARWANOO (HIMACHAL PRADESH) AND THE ENTIRE PLANT & MACHINERY IS ONLY INSTALLED AT PARWANOO UNIT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID PLEA TO WHICH THERE IS NO CONTROVERSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IN FACT, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO PAGES 42 TO 50 AND PAGES 65 TO 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN ARE PLACED BALANCE SHEETS OF GURGAON AND PARWANOO UNITS FOR THE YEARS ENDING 31.3.2005 AND 31.3.2006. IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT GURGAON UNIT IS NOT A MANUFACTURING UNIT IN AS MUCH AS IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PLANT & MACHINERY. MOREOVER, AT PAGES 51 TO 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS PLACED A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IN A SIMILAR SITUATION. WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION BROUGHT OUT B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEPART FROM THE POSITION ACCEPTED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. NO CHANGE IN FACTS OR IN LAW HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT TO JUSTIFY SUCH DEPARTURE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE MAY REFER TO THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) WHEREBY THE 7 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN RELATION TO THE INCOME COMPRISED IN THE STOCK TRANSFER TO THE UNIT AT GURGAON:- 13. FROM THE FACTS & RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE ME, I FIND THAT (I) ALL THE PRINCIPLE PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE INSTALLED IN PARWANOO UNIT. THERE WERE NO PLANT AND MACHINERY INSTALLED IN GURGAON UNIT. THE A. O. HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT. THAT ONLY CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO FITTING OF RUBBER PARTS AND OTHER CHILD PARTS WERE PERFORMED AT GURGAON UNIT ON THE STOCK TRANSFERRED FROM PARWANOO UNIT, WAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE A. O. (II) AFTER PERFORMING THESE ACTIVITIES, THE GURGAON UNIT USED TO TRANSFER THE STOCK TO THE MUL AFTER PACKING ETC. I HAVE PERUSED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS ONE OF THE PRINCIPLE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION IS THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SHOULD MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING. SO IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED ANY ARTICLE OR THING AT PARWANOO UNIT. AS PER THE MATERIAL ON RECORD I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MANUFACTURED AUTOMOBILE PARTS. 14. AS PER THE SETTLED LAW IF A NEW PRODUCT EMERGES, WHICH IS IDENTIFIABLE AND ACCEPTABLE BY BUYER OR SELLER IN THE OPEN MARKET, THEN IT IS SAID TO BE SITUATION WHERE THE APPELLANT IS SAID TO HAVE MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED ARTICLE. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED AUTOMOBILE PARTS AT PARWANOO UNIT AND ONLY ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES WERE PERFORMED AT THE GURGAON UNIT. THE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO FITTING OF RUBBER AND OTHER CHILD PARTS AND PACKING WERE NOTHING, BUT WERE ANCILLARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE PRINCIPLE ACTIVITIES. BY PERFORMING SUCH ACTIVITIES BY THE APPELLANT AT GURGAON UNIT NO NEW PRODUCT CAME INTO EXISTENCE. IT WAS THE SAME PRODUCT THAT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM PARWANOO UNTO TO GURGAON UNIT. 8 15. I FURTHER FIND FROM THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS THAT ALL THE PRINCIPLE/MAJOR MANUFACTURING PROCESS THAT RESULTED INTO THE PRODUCTS WERE PERFORMED AT PARWANOO UNIT. SO IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT THAT MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED ARTICLE AND THINGS IN ITS PARWANOO UNIT AND, THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONTENTION OF THE A. O. THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED INTO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE IN RESPECT OF STOCK TRANSFER. THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE A. O. ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS THE APPELLANT HAD MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED ARTICLES OR THING. I, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RS.33,71,958/- U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 RELATING TO STOCK TRANSFER THEREBY ALLOWING THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. 13. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE HAS TO FAIL ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A ) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT O F SCRAP SALES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO COVERED BY THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND NO MISTAKE IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A). AS PER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A), IN THIS CASE, THE SALE WAS OF SCRAP GENERATED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND, THEREFORE, IT HAD A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE 9 ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE PLACED ON T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNDRAM CLAYTON LTD. AND PENNER (INDIA) LTD.(SUPRA) IS APPOSITE. IN SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED D.R. ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE SAME, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. (SUPRA), DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HH WAS DENIED IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF SCRAP BECAUSE THE RE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE SCRAP WAS A NECESSARY BY-PRODUCT IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) HAS FOUND THAT THE SCRAP SOLD WAS GENERATED DURING THE COURSE OF PRODUCTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND, THEREFORE, IT HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. ACCORDINGLY, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE STAND ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING THA T THOSE IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT HELP THE REVENUE. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT, THE REVENUE HAS TO FAIL. 9. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN GROUND NO 4, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON JOB WORK CHARGES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S ABOVE REFERRED OWN CASE. THE RELEVAN T PART OF THE 10 DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 9. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE DISPUTE IS THE DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION ON THE INCOME BY WAY OF JOB WORK AMOUNTING TO RS.25,470/-. IN THIS REGARD, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BY UNDERTAKING MANUFACTURING JOB FOR AN OUTSIDE PARTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED. ON THIS ISSUE, QUITE CLEARLY, THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. IMPEL FORGE & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,183 TAXMAN 38 (P&H) CLEARLY APPLIES. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE REVENUE FAILS ON THIS ASPECT. 10. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OCT.,2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19 TH OCT.,2011. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT ,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH