ITO, Trichy V. Smt. S.Mahalakshmi, Trichy

ITA 1523/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64604 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BASHYAM JT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.1523/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD III(1) TIRUCHIRAPALLI VS SMT. S. MAHALAKSHMI NO.10, MATHURAM GROUNDS THILLAI NAGAR TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 620018 [PAN AFZPM1125Q] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAM, JT. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 04-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-12-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, DATED 30.7.2010. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80- IB OF THE ACT. I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 2 -: 2.1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ACTIVITY ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE I S 'PROCESSING' ONLY AND NOT MANUFACTURE OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRO DUCTION IN THIS CASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80-IB(2)(II I) OF THE ACT SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT PROVIDED UNDER THIS SECTION. IN THIS CASE, THE COMMODITY, VIZ. BLACK GRAM, CONTI NUES ITS ORIGINAL IDENTITY EVEN AFTER PROCESSING; , 2.2) IN THE CASE OF ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. VS CIT REP ORTED IN 251 ITR 323 AND CITED BY THE APPELLANT, THE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PROCESSING IS A MANUFACTURING PROCESS WHEN IT BRINGS OUT A COMPLETE TRANSFORMATION IN THE ORIGINAL ARTIC LE SO AS TO PRODUCE A COMMERCIALLY DIFFERENT ARTICLE OR COMMODI TY. . IF A COMMERCIALLY DIFFERENT ARTICLE OR COMMODITY RESULTS AFTER PROCESSING, THEN IT WOULD BE A MANUFACTURING ACTIVI TY. THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: COMMONLY, MANUFACTURE IS THE END RESULT OF ONE OR M ORE PROCESSES THOUGH WHICH, THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY IS M ADE TO PASS. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROCESSING MAY VARY FROM ONE CASE TO ANOTHER AND INDEED THERE MAY BE SEVERAL STA GES OF PROCESSING, PERHAPS A DIFFERENT KIND OF PROCESSING AT EACH STAGE. WITH EACH PROCESS SUFFERED, THE ORIGINAL COM MODITY EXPERIENCES A CHANGE. BUT IT IS ONLY WHEN THE CHANGE OR SERIES OF CHANGES TAKE THE COMMODITY TO THE POINT WHERE COMMERCIALLY IT CAN NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS THE OR IGINAL COMMODITY BUT INSTEAD IS RECOGNIZED AS A NEW AND DI STINCT ARTICLE THAT A MANUFACTURE CAN BE SAID TO TAKE PLACE 2.3 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) CIT(A) FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT IN THE APPELLANT'S CA SE, THE END PRODUCT IS THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY VIZ. LACK/GREEN GRAM, WHICH DOESN'T LOOSE ITS IDENTITY EVEN AFTER T HE PROCESSES UNDERGONE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) CIT(A) FAILED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE M ADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS COMPUTER GRAPHICS LIMITED (285 ITR 84) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF CONVERT ING JUMBO ROLLS INTO MARKETABLE SMALL SIZES CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 3 -: 3.1 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FA ILED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION' OF THE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF SACS EAGLES CHICORY VS CIT (255 ITR 178) WH EREIN IT IS HELD THAT MERE CRUSHING OF CHICORY ROOTS INTO CH ICORY POWDER CANNOT BE A MANUFACTURING PROCESSES; 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD. & OTHERS VS. ITO & OTHERS REPORTED IN (245 ITR 538), THE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE PREPARATION OF F OOD DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING . 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO. FOLLOW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF.THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAMPUDHIRIS PICKLE INDUSTRIES (KER) 199 3 KLJ (TAX CASES) 198WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT CHILLY & CHI LLY PRODUCTS ARE ESSENTIALLY SAME COMMODITY AND THERE IS NO MANU FACTURING INVOLVED. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS IN THE FOLLOWI NG CASES WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES TO MAKE THE TENDU LEAVES SOFT IS NOT PROCESSING. NATWARLAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (MP) 233 ITR490 SAGARMAL AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (ORI) 23 8 ITR 989 NORTH KOEL KENDU LEAVES AND MAHULAM LEAVES VS. UNIO N OF INDIA & ORS. (PATNA) 228 ITR 630 ABDUL SATTAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (MP) 230 ITR 163 7. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED THA T THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE CITCA) MAY BE CAN CELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED B LACK GRAM AND GREEN GRAM AND AFTER PROCESSING THEM IN TO DAL, HAS SOLD THE SAME IN THE MARKET AND HAS IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 4 -: ` 32,04,730/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT IVITY OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INVOLVE ANY MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCT ION. 4. ON APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAS HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB AND WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UN 80IB OF THE ACT. THUS , IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L IS WHETHER PURCHASE OF BLACK AND GREEN GRAM AND AFTER PROCESSI NG THE SAME INTO DAL AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR NOT TO ENTITLE THE A SSESSEE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 5. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY IT AS UNDER: ' PROCESS DESCRIPTION: THE RAW MATERIALS AFTER PROCUREMENT ARE TESTED BY VERY EXPERIENCED PERSONS AND ARE SENT FOR PRODUCTION. TH EY ARE SUN DRIED IN THE YARD AND FURTHER DRIED IN THE DRIE R TO REMOVE MOISTURE. THEN THE RAW MATERIAL IS PASSED THROUGH THE SEED CLEANER AND SHAKER (SIEVE) TO REMOVE FOREIGN M ATERIALS. THE MATERIAL RECEIVED IS GRADED. THE GRADED MATERIA L IS PASSED THROUGH ASA (ROLLER WITH EMERY STONE) TO REM OVE THE HUSK AND THEN SIEVED TO REMOVED THE DUST. THE PROCE SS IS REPEATED TILL THE HUSK IS REMOVED IN TOTAL. MATERIA L MIXED WITH OIL IN THE MOBILE OIL BOX AND SUN DRIED IN THE YARD I DRIER. AFTER THE OIL MIXED MATERIAL IS PROCESSED THROUGH THE ASA TO REMOVE THE HUSK AND SIEVED. THE SIEVED MATERIAL REC EIVED IS POLISHED AND PACKED.' I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 5 -: 6. HE SUBMITTED THAT FROM A READING OF THE ABOVE PROCE SS, IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THERE IS NO NEW PRODUCT MANUFACTU RED BY THE ASSESSEE. BLACK GRAM REMAINS BLACK DAL AND AS NO NEW PRODUCT IS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HEN CE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION T O THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT CONVERSION OF GRAM INTO DAL WAS MANUFA CTURE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIO NS: ASPINWALL & CO. LTD VS CIT 251 ITR 3 23(SC) CIT VS COMPUTER GRAPHICS LTD 285 ITR 84 ( MAD) SACS EAGLES CHICORY VS CIT 255 ITR 178(SC) INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD & OTHERS VS ITO & OTHERS 245 ITR 538(SC) 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD., [2010] 320 ITR 546, AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE COURT IN PARA 10 OF ITS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE TERM MANUFACTURE IMPLIES A CHANGE, BUT EVERY CHANGE IS NOT A MANUFAC TURE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT EVERY CHANGE IN AN ARTICLE IS THE RESULT OF A TREATMENT OF LABOUR AND MANIPULATION. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT T HIS TEST OF MANUFACTURE NEEDS TO BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCESS. IF AN OPERATION/PROCESS RENDERS A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE FI T FOR USE FOR WHICH IT IS OTHERWISE NOT FIT, THE OPERATION/PROCESS FALL S WITHIN THE MEANING OF I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 6 -: THE WORD MANUFACTURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFOR E, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT BY THE DUPLICATING PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE RECORDABLE MEDIA WHICH IS UNFIT FOR A NY SPECIFIC USE GETS CONVERTED INTO THE PROGRAMME WHICH IS EMBEDDED IN T HE MASTER MEDIA. THE DUPLICATING PROCESS CHANGES THE BASIC CH ARACTER OF A BLANK CD DEDICATING IT TO A SPECIFIC USE WITHOUT WHICH IT IS UNFIT FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSES AND THEREFORE, IT CONSTITUTES A M ANUFACTURE IN TERMS OF SECTION 80IA(12)(B) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ALSO, BLACK GRAM/GREEN GRAM CANNOT BE CONSUMED DIRECTLY. IT HAS TO BE PROCESSED AND AFTER PROCESS ING BLACK GRAM/ GREEN GRAM THE SAME IS CONVERTED INTO DAL WHICH IS FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. THEREFORE, THE PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MITESH TRADING CO. VS ITO, I.T.A.NO. 1299/AHD/2007, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-0 1, ORDER DATED 12.03.2010, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT MANUFACTURING OF URAD DAL FROM RAW URAD AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE AND THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IA WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE INDORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT, BHOPAL VS M/S SHREE JANKI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. I.T.A.NO. 217/IND/2011, ORDER DATED 27.02.2012 WHERE IT WAS H ELD THAT MANUFACTURING OF DAL OUT OF GRAM, MOONG, URAD, MASU R, ETC. AMOUNTS I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 7 -: TO A COMMERCIALLY NEW AND DISTINCT END PRODUCT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(3)(II) OF THE ACT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ON MANUF ACTURE OF DAL FROM BLACK AND GREEN GRAM AND HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE SHOULD BE D ISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED BLACK GRAM AN D GREEN GRAM AND AFTER CONVERTING THE SAME INTO DAL, SOLD THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT OF ` 32,04,730/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND T HAT THE CONVERSION OF GRAM INTO DAL DID NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE, AS ACCORDING TO HIM, GRAM AND DAL ARE THE SAME THING. 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), RELYING ON THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DIVISIONAL DEPUTY COMM ISSIONER OF SALES TAX & ANOTHER VS BHERHAGHAT MINERAL INDUSTRIES, 246 ITR 230, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE END PRODUCT SHOULD BE DIFFEREN T FROM THE INPUT SO AS TO TREAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFA CTURE HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE CONVERSION OF GRAM INTO D AL RESULTED IN I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 8 -: BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE A NEW PRODUCT AND THEREFORE , WAS MANUFACTURE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 10. THE DR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. VS CIT, [ 2001]251 ITR 323(SC), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE CHANGE OR SERIES OF CHANGES TAKE THE COMMODITY TO THE POINT WHERE COMMERCIALLY IT CAN NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY BUT INSTEAD I S RECOGNIZED AS A NEW AND DISTINCT ARTICLE THAT A MANUFACTURE CAN BE SAID TO TAKE PLACE. ACCORDING TO THE DR, THE END PRODUCT IS THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY I.E BLACK/GREEN GRAM WHICH DOES NOT LOSE ITS IDENTITY EVEN AFTER THE PROCESSES UNDERGONE. SIMILARLY, HE RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS COMPUTER GRAPHICS LTD., 285 ITR 84, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT C ONVERSION OF JUMBO ROLLS INTO MARKETABLE SMALL SIZES WAS NOT MANUFACTU RE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SACS EAGLES CHICORY VS CIT, 255 ITR 178, WHERE IT WAS HE LD THAT MERE CRUSHING OF CHICORY ROOTS INTO CHICORY POWER CANNOT BE A MANUFACTURING PROCESS. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD & OTHERS VS ITO & OTHERS, 245 ITR 538, WHER E THE HON'BLE I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 9 -: SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PREPARATION OF FOOD DOE S NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE. 11. THE A.R, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE RAW MATERIAL OF THE ASSESSEES INDUSTRY ARE BLACK GRAM AND GREE N GRAM AND THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS DAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT GREEN GRAM AND BLACK GRAM ALSO KNOWN AS CHANA ARE DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT CO MMODITY FROM DAL WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS PULSES. WHEN A PERSON GOES TO THE MARKET TO PURCHASE CHANA (GRAM) NO SHOPKEEPER WILL OFFER HIM DAL (PULSES). BOTH ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS KNOWN IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD BY TWO DIFFERENT NAMES. HE RELIED UPON THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS ACIT, BHOPAL VS M/S SHREE JANKI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD, IN I.T.A.NO. 217/IND/2011, ORDER DATED 27.2.2012 MITESH TRADING CO. VS ITO, IN I.T.A.NO. 1299/AHD/20 07, ORDER DATED 12.03.2010 CIT VS ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD, 320 ITR 546 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SUPPO RTED BY THESE DECISIONS. 12. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL BE FORE US TO SHOW THAT CHANA (GRAM) AND DAL (PULSES) ARE SAME PRODUCT AND ARE NOT RECOGNIZED AS DIFFERENT PRODUCTS IN THE COMMERC IAL WORLD. NONE OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE DR SHOWS THAT PULS ES AND GRAMS ARE I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 10 -: SAME PRODUCT. THUS, THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY T HE DR ARE FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CA SE OF ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE AS IT IS OBSERVED THAT PULSES ARE NOT COMMERCIALLY RECOGNIZED AS GRAM AND PULSES ARE RECOGNIZED AS A NEW COMMODITY. 13. FURTHER WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF INDIA CINE AGENCIES VS CIT , 308 ITR 98(SC), HAS HELD THAT CUTTING OF JUMBO ROLLS OF PHOTOGRAPHIC FILMS INTO SMALL FLA TS AND ROLLS OF DESIRED SIZES IS PRODUCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIONS 80HH AND 80-I. 14. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SACS EAGLES CHICORY VS CIT (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE DR, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HA S FOUND THAT ON CONVERSION OF CHICORY ROOTS INTO CHICORY POWDER ONL Y FORM OF COMMODITY IS CHANGED AND NOT ITS IDENTITY AS CHICOR Y REMAINS CHICORY. IN CONTRAST TO THIS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND T HAT A NEW COMMERCIAL PRODUCT KNOWN AS DAL EMERGED ON CONSUMPTION OF GRAM . THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION IS FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE. 15. THE NEXT DECISION RELIED ON BY THE DR WAS IN THE CA SE OF INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD. & OTHERS VS ITO & OTHERS (S UPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROCESS OF COOKING IS NOT MANUFAC TURING AS RAW I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 11 -: MATERIAL AND FINISHED GOODS ARE KNOWN BY THE SAME N AME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE PROCESSES UND ERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS DETAILED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT T HE PROCESSES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CALLED A PROC ESS OF COOKING ONLY AND FURTHER GREEN GRAM AND BLACK GRAM ARE COMM ODITY DIFFERENT FROM THE END PRODUCT WHICH IS KNOWN AS PULSES. 16. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT D UPLICATING PROCESS CARRIED OUT TO PREPARE A RECORDED CD FROM THE MASTE R MEDIA CHANGES THE BASIC CHARACTER OF A BLANK CD, DEDICATING IT TO A SPECIFIC USE, CONSTITUTES MANUFACTURE IN TERMS OF SECTION 80IA(12 )(B) OF THE ACT. 17. FURTHER, THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF MITESH TRADING CO. VS ITO (SUPRA) ALSO HELD THAT THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING RAW URAD INTO URAD DAL WAS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE INDORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT, B HOPAL VS M/S SHREE JANKI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,(SUPRA), AFTER TAKING INT O CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ITO VS ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES PVT. LTD, 320 ITR 79(SC), CIT VS OR ACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD., 320 ITR 546(SC)AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RE PORTED IN THAT ORDER, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MANUFACTURE OF D AL OUT OF GRAM, I.T.A.NO. 1523/10 :- 12 -: MOONG, URAD, MASUR, ETC. WAS A COMMERCIALLY NEW AND DISTINCT END PRODUCT AND THEREFORE, AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(3)(II) OF THE A CT 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE ABOVE QUOTED DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A). IT IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 07 TH OF DECEMBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07 TH DECEMBER, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR