The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Jammu V. M/s. Singla Cables, Jammu

ITA 147/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 14720914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH S K BANSAL; SUBHASH DUTT AD VS
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 43B; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.147(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN:AAQFS9604Q DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S. SINGLA CABL ES, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR RESPONDENT BY:S/SH. S.K. BANSAL & SUBHASH DUTT, ADVS. DATE OF HEARING :25/05/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:01/06/2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 24.02.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IB ON CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND BY RELYING UPON ORDERS O F HON'BLE HIGH COURT IF J&K, JAMMU WHICH HAS BEEN DELIVERED NOT ON MERITS OF THE ISSUE BUT HOLDING THE RECEIPT TO BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT ONLY BECAUSE THE POLICY UNDER WHICH THE SAME WAS PA ID ENVISAGED TACKLING THE UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE WH ICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A GOOD TEST FOR DECIDING WHETHER A RE CEIPT IS A TRADING RECEIPT OR A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PONNI SUGAR & SAWHNEY STEEL AND PRES S WORKS LTD, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD SUC H RECEIPTS TO BE THE REVENUE RECEIPTS IN AS MUCH AS IN THAT CA SE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ONLY AFTER THE INDUSTRIES HAD BEEN SET UP AND PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE FOR PURPOSE OF SETTING UP OF INDUSTRIES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SEAHAM HARB OUR DOCK COMPANY WHICH LAYS DOWN TWO IMPORTANT TESTS FOR DET ERMINING WHETHER RECEIPTS IS A TRADING RECEIPT OR A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) WAS RIGHT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING AND APPLIED THE PURPOSE TEST AS LAID D OWN BY THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. IN THE CAS E OF ASSESSEE, THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACC OUNT OF REFUND OF CENTRAL EXCISE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SPE NT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER FOR PURPOSE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANS ION OF THE INDUSTRY. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 40(A)(IA ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT( A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80-IB ON DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,66,799/- MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) A S THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, I N VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. KASHMIR TUBES REPORTED IN ITA NO.145(ASR)/2005 DATED 07.12. 2007 WHERE SUCH DISALLOWANCES WERE UPHELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDI CATED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL 3 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI VS. CIT AND ANOTHER (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K), IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SECOND I SSUE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, HAS ALS O BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS IN ITA NO.184(ASR)/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PASSED ON 11.06.201 0. HE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT M AY BE DISMISSED. 5. THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HE ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE HAVE ALREADY BE EN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT OF J & K IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOWS V. CIT AND AN OTHER (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH, PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS IN ITA NO.185\4(A SR)/2009 FOR THE A.Y.2005-06 DATED 11.06.2010. THE ISSUES BEFORE TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOR DETERMINATION WERE AS UNDER:- (1) WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE REFUND AND INTERES T SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANTS-ASSESSEES, IN PURSUANCE OF THE INCENTIVES ANNOUNCED AND SANCTIONED VIDE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POL ICY AND PROMOTION)S OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 1(13)2000-NER D ATED JUNE 14,2002 AND CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATION NOS. 56 AND 57, DATED 4 NOVEMBER 14, 2002 AND OTHER NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON THE SUBJECT, PERTAINING TO THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY INTRODUCED IN T HE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND, THUS, NOT LI ABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OR REVENUE RECEIPT, AS OPINE D BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT? (2) WHETHER THE APPELLANTS-ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED T O DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE EXCISE DUTY RE FUND AND INTEREST SUBSIDY ETC., BEING THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE IND USTRIAL UNDERTAKING, IN CASE THE EXCISE REFUND AND INTEREST SUBSIDY WERE FOUND TO BE REVENUE RECEIPT. 7. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR WHIL E DECIDING THE MATTER HAS DISCUSSED THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE NE W INDUSTRIAL POLICY, AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED THERETO AND STATUTORY NOTIFIC ATION ETC. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LTD (1997) 228 ITR 253 (S.C) AND OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 26 A PERUSAL OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 1 4, 2002 INDICATING NEW INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND OTHER CONCESSI ONS FOR THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MAKES IT EXPLICIT THAT THE CONCE SSIONS WERE ISSUED TO ACHIEVE TWIN OBJECTS VIZ. (I) ACCELERATIO N OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, WHIC H HAD BEEN FOUND LAGGING BEHIND IN SUCH DEVELOPMENT, AND (II) GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR. 27 AMENDMENT INTRODUCED TO THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM VI DE NOTIFICATION OF NOVEMBER 28, 2003 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF IN DUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION) ELOQUENTLY DEMONSTRATES THE CENTRAL GOVERENMENTS INTENTION IN EXTENDING THE INCENTIVES. THE GOVERNM ENTS OBJECTIVE, AS CONVEYED BY THE HONBLE PRIME MINISTER A SRINAGAR O N APRIL 19, 2003, WAS, FOR CREATION OF ONE LAKH EMPLOYMENT AND SELF-EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE. 5 28 TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE, IT WAS, INTER ALIA, PROVIDED IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE NOT IFICATIONS THAT THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE NOTIFICATIONS WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY ON PRODUCTION OF CERTIFICATE FROM GENERAL MANAGER OF T HE CONCERNED DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE TO THE JURISDICTIONAL DE PUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE OR THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE UNIT HAD CR EATED REQUIRED ADDITIONAL REGULAR EMPLOYMENT, WHICH WOULD NOT, HOW EVER, INCLUDE EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS TO DAIL Y WAGERS OR CASUAL EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE UNITS. 29 A CLOSE READING OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM AND THE AMENDMENT INTRODUCED THERETO WITH PARAGRAPH NO. 3 APPEARING I N THE CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATION NOS. 56 AND 57 OF NOVEMBER 11, 2002, THUS, MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ACCELERATION OF DEVEL OPMENT OF INDUSTRIES IN THE STATE WAS CONTEMPLATED WITH THE OBJECT OF GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND THE GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, SO, CONTEMPLATED, WAS NOT ONLY CASUA L OR TEMPORARY; BUT WAS ON THE OTHER HAND, OF PERMANENT NATURE. 30 CONSIDERED THUS, THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN PROVIDING THE INCENTIVES TO THE NEW I NDUSTRIAL UNITS AND SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING UNITS, WAS TH E GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT THROUGH ACCELERATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVEL OPMENT, TO DEAL WITH THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STAT E, ADDITIONALLY CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF-EMPLOYMENT, HENCE A PURPOSE IN PUBLIC INTEREST. 31 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE INCENTIVES PROVI DED TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, IN TERMS OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL PO LICY, FOR ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE, FOR CREATION O F SUCH INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ADD ITIONAL PERMANENT SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT TO THE UNEMPLOYED IN HE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, WERE IN FACT, IN THE NATURE OF C REATION OF NEW ASSETS OF INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT, H AVING THE POTENTIAL OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATION TO ACHIEVE A SOCIAL OBJECT . SUCH INCENTIVES, DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE PUBLIC PURPOSE, CANNOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF REASONING, BE CONSTRUED AS PRODUCTION OR OPERATIONA L INCENTIVES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSES ALONE. 32 THUS, LOOKING TO THE PURPOSE, OF ERADICATION OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE BY ACCELERATIO N OF THE 6 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVING BACKWARDNESS OF THE AREA THAT LAGGED BEHIND IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CERTAINLY A PURPOSE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE INCENTIVES PROV IDED BY THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM AND STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN TH IS BEHALF, TO THE APPELLANTS-ASSESSEES, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS MERE P RODUCTION AND TRADE INCENTIVES, AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. 33. MAKING OF ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN THE SCHEME TH AT INCENTIVES WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, ENT ITLED THERETO, FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTI ON, AND THAT THESE WERE NOT REQUIRED FOR CREATION OF NEW ASSETS CANNOT BE VIEWED IN ISOLATION, TO TREAT THE INCENTIVES AS PRODUCTION IN CENTIVES, AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, FOR THE MEASURE SO TAKEN, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE MADE AVAILABLE O NLY TO THE BONA FIDE INDUSTRIAL UNITS SO THAT LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST OF DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE, AS INTENDED, IN TERMS OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, WAS ACHIEVED. 34. THE OTHER FACTORS, WHICH HAD WEIGHED WITH THE T RIBUNAL IN DETERMINE THE INCENTIVES AS PRODUCTION INCENTIVES M AY NOT BE DECISIVE TO DETERMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE INCENTIVE SUBSI DIES, WHEN IT IS FOUND, AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, AM ENDMENT INTRODUCED THERETO AND THE STATUTORY NOTIFICATION T OO THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE PROVIDED WITH THE OBJECT OF CREATING AVENUES F OR PERPETUAL EMPLOYMENT, TO ERADICATE THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEM PLOYMENT IN THE STATE BY ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. 8. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 35 FOR ALL WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE, THE FINDING O F THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FIRST ISSUE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND, INTERE ST SUBSIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY WERE PRODUCTION INCENTIVES, HENCE REVENUE RECEIPT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, BEING AGAINST THE LAW LAID DOW N BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SAHNEY STEEL CASE (1997) 228 ITR 253 AND PONNI SUGARS CASE (2008) 306 ITR 392. 36 THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE REVENUE RECEIPT IS, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE HOLDING THE INCE NTIVES TO THE CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSES. 37 IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDING ON THE FIRST ISSUE, THERE IS NO NEED TO OPINE ON THE SECOND ISSUE, WHICH WAS RAISED IN T HE ALTERNATIVE. 7 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT(SUPRA), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED. 10. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,66,799/- MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS, IN ITA NO.184(ASR )/2009 (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT AMRITSAR, WHERE IT IS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT IS ALLOW ABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF ENHANCED INCOME IN VIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/ S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLO W DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,66,799/- BEING ENHANC EMENT OF INCOME DUE TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT AND OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUN PHARMA CEUTICALS (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER ALSO.: 38 AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NOS.1, 2 AN D 3 CLAIMING CONSEQUENTIAL THE HIGHER DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IB ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF REMUNERATION UNDER SE CTION 40(B) AMOUNTING TO RS.33,20,15,856/-, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 43B AMOUNTING TO RS.18,46,427/- AND DISALLO WANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) AMOUNTING TO RS.4,80,301/- FOR 8 CONTRIBUTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 39. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT S ECTION 80AB STATES IN CLEAR TERMS AS UNDER:- SECTION 80AB. WHERE ANY DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE OR ALLOW ED UNDER ANY SECTION INCLUDED IN THIS CHAPTER UNDER THE HEAD ING C.- DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOMES IN RESPEC T OF ANY INCOME OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THAT SECTION WHIC H IS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN, NO TWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THAT SECTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SECTION, THE AMO UNT OF INCOME OF THAT NATURE AS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER) SHALL ALONE BE DEEMED TO BE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OF THAT NATURE WHICH IS DERIVED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND WHICH IS INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME. 40. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE EXTENT DISALLOWA NCE AND/OR THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE, WHICH ARE SUBJECT MA TTER OF ADDITIONAL GROUND, ORIGINAL PROFIT TO THE APPELLANT WOULD STAND ENHANCED OR EVEN ON THIS PROFIT WOULD GET DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS AMOUNTS (RS.32,20,15,856/-, RS.18,46,427/- AND RS.4,80,301/ -) ARE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME, CONSEQUENTLY DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IS ALLOWABLE ON SUCH HIGHER AMOU NT. HENCE, THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE ALLO WED SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 70A(2) READ WITH SECTI ON 80AB AND 80B(5) OF THE I.T. ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIN D THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDE R BASED ON FACTS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WHICH REQUIRES NO IN TERFERENCE AT OUR LEVEL. 9 THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE ADJUDICATIN G THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS ITA NO.184(ASR)20 09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 11.06.2010, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND WELL REASONED FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE SA ME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.147(ASR)/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1ST JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1ST JUNE, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. SINGLA CABLES, JAMMU. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE.1, JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.