ITO, Baddi V. M/s J.B. Conductors & Cables, Solan

ITA 1321/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 132121514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 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: 22-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR
• Section: 142(1)

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. 1321/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, V J.B.CONDUCTORS & CABLES BADDI(H.P.). VILLAGE KIRPALPUR, TEHSIL NALAGARH, SOLAN. PAN: AABFJ-0572D & CO NO.73/CHD/2011 ITA NO. 1321/CHD/2010 J.B.CONDUCTORS & CABLES V INCOME TAX OFFICER, VILLAGE KIRPALPUR, BADDI TEHSIL NALAGARH, SOLAN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE C.O BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15. 09.2010 OF THE CIT(A) SHIMLA. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND O F APPEAL 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO THE EXTENT OF RS.84,93,110/- ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CCE 2 V TECHNOWELD INDUSTRIES LTD. (2003) 155 ELT 209. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) B E SET- ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH MAY ARISE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. THEREFO RE, NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 4. IN GROUND NO.1, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.84,93,110/- . THE REVENUE REFERRED TO THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CCE V TECHNOWELD INDUSTRIES LTD. (2003) 155 ELT 209. 5. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BOTH THE DR AND AR STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. 6. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED BRIEFLY ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AFTER DED UCTION U/S 80(IC) OF THE ACT AT RS.84,93,110/- HAS BEEN FILED AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE SER VED. THE LD. AO SOUGHT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IC OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWE D, ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 80IA(10)/80IC(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. THE L D. AO REJECTED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT TH E PROCESS OF 3 WIRE DRAWING DOES NOT BRING OUT ANY NEW AND DIFFERE NT ARTICLE THAN THAT OF INPUT. THE THICKER WIRES CALLED COPPER OR ALUMINUM RODS ARE ALSO WIRES. REDUCING THEIR DIAMETER DOES N OT PRODUCE ANY THING DIFFERENT. FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL EXCISE V TECH NOWELD INDUSTRIES 2003 (155) ELT 209 AND VARIOUS OTHER CAS E LAWS THE LD. AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.215/CHD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 30.11.2009. THE RELEV ANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE UNDERSIGNED CAREFULLY. THE I SSUE UNDER APPEALS IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE IT AT CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH (SUPRA) VIDE PARA 15.4. ON PAGE 36 THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD AS UNDE R: IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS, IN THE GIVEN SET OF FACTS, ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, AS THEIR INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CAN BE SAID TO HAVE MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED AN ARTICLE OR A THING. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE I TAT, DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IS ALLOWED. AS SUCH, THESE GROUN DS OF APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 8. THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IN THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN SQ UARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE 'S OWN CASE, AS HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL R AISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. 4 9. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT FROM DEBTORS AM OUNTING TO RS.5,02,883/-. THE CROSS-OBJECTION WAS FILED ON 01 .10.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED MEMO OF CROSS OBJECTION IN FORM NO.36A IN RESPONSE TO APPEAL NO.1321/CHD/2010 DATED 19.11.201 0 FILED ON 22.11.2010 BY THE REVENUE. ON BEING ASKED BY TH E BENCH WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 253(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND TH E CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OCTOBER,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