The ITO, Vapi Ward-4, Nani Daman V. M/s. Packwell Packaging, Nani Daman

ITA 1634/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50510 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VP AND SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM) ITA NO.1634/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. PACKWELL PACKAGING, PLOT NO. 710/4, DABHEL, SOMNATH, NANI DAMAN PA NO. AAEFP 8814 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1635/AHD/2009 A.Y.: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUSTRIES, SURVEY NO.168/1 & 2, DABHEL INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., DABHEL, NANI DAMAN PA NO. AAGFA 6202 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJ MEHRA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) DATE OF HEARING: 11-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26-08-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CI T(A), VALSAD DATED 26-02-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN BOTH THE AP PEALS, THEREFORE, ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 2 BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME THROUGH THIS COMMON CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO.1634/AHD/2009 (M/S. PACKWELL PACKAGING) 2. THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,89,958/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 01-12 -2006 WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AO IS AFTER THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE IT ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SO CAUSE AS TO WHY DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT DURING THE YEAR THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR THE ASSESSEE COVERED U/S 44AB OF THE IT ACT WAS 31-12-2 006 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BE CAUSE CIRCULAR QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND EXTENSION OF FI LING OF RETURN FOR THE ASSESSEES OF DAMAN. THE EXTENSION OF FILING OF THE RETURN WAS APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSEES FOR GUJARAT ONLY. DAMA N IS A UNION TERRITORY AND IS A SEPARATE ENTITY AND THE INCOME T AX OFFICE IS SITUATED AT DAMAN AND THE FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE H AS ALREADY BEEN SET UP AT DAMAN ITSELF. THE BOARD HAS NOT EXTENDED DUE DATE IN DAMAN. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT WAS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 3 4. THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CBDT ON CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF DISRUPTION CAUSED DUE TO HEAVY RAINS AND FLOODS IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT U/S 119 OF THE IT ACT EXTENDED THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETU RN OF INCOME FROM 31-10-2006 TO 31-12-2006 IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX ASSESSEES IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE UNION T ERRITORY OF DAMAN & DIU IS TOTALLY SURROUNDED BY THE STATE OF GUJARAT F ROM ALL THE SIDES AND EVEN IT ENCOMPASSES WITHIN ITSELF CERTAIN PORTION O F GUJARAT STATE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAX A SSESSEES WHICH CARRIED ON BUSINESS IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN BUT ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICE SITUATED AT VAPI IS ALLOCATED TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF ASSESSING OFFICERS BY APPLYING INCOME / STATUS CRITERIA AND CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE CORPORATE ASSESSEES IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR INCOME LEVEL AND NO N-COOPERATE ASSESSEE HAVING INCOME ABOVE RS. 5 LACS ARE PHYSICALLY ASSESSED BY THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI AND ALL THE OTHER SMALL TAX PAYEE ASSESSEES HAVING INCOME BELOW RS. 5 LACS AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE ARE ASSESSED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER HOLD ING CHARGE OF INCOME TAX OFFICE AT VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN. THUS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE INCOME TAX OFFICE SITUATED AT DAMAN IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT OFFICE FROM THAT OF INCOME TAX OFFICE AT VAPI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT WHEN THE INCOME OF SUCH SMALL TAX PAYER ASSESSEES WHO ARE ASSESSED AT DAMAN EXCEEDS RS. 5 LACS THEIR FILES ARE AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO ACIT, VAPI ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 4 CIRCLE, VAPI WITHOUT PASSING ANY ORDER U/S 127 OF THE IT ACT. TH US IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE WORKING OF INCOME TAX OFFICE, VAPI WHICH IN TURN IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF OFFICE OF CIT, VALSAD, OFFICE OF CCIT SURAT AND ULTIMATELY OFFICE OF CCIT AHMEDABAD SITUATED IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. IN THIS MANNER THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER ARGUMENTS IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AN ASSESSEE IN THE STATE OF GUJARA T. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM T HAT THE CBDT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 119(1) AND (2)(A) OF TH E IT ACT VIDE ITS ORDER NO. 113/38/2006-TPL(PT.) DATED 24-10-2006 EXTENDED THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR CORPORATE ASSESSEE FROM 31-10-2006 TO 30-11-2006 BY CATEGORIC ALLY EXCLUDING COMPANIES ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE IN THE STATE OF GU JARAT AS THEY WERE ALREADY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 13- 10-2006. THUS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE ON A COMBINED READING OF BOTH THESE CBDT ORDERS THE PHRASE 'INCOME TAX ASSESSEE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT' WOULD MEAN 'INCOME TAX ASSESSEE ASSESSED O R ASSESSABLE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT.' THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) A COPY OF ITS PAN AND TAN DETAILS FR OM THE INCOME TAX'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE S AID DETAILS ALLOTTED BY THE DEPARTMENT CLEARLY INDICATES UNDER THE HEAD JUR ISDICTION AS GUJARAT. SIMILARLY IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE ARE HELD AT VALSAD AND A HMEDABAD BEING THE LOCATION OF CIT(APPEALS) AND INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 5 ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON FOLLOWING LEGAL PR ECEDENTS TOUCHING UPON INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTES PROVIDING IN CENTIVE FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT WHICH NEED TO BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO ADVANCE THE OBJECTIVE AND NOT TO FRUSTRATE IT. BAJAJ TEMPO LTD V/S CIT [1992] 196ITR PAGE 188 (SC) HELD A PROVISION IN A TAXING STATUTE GRANTING INCEN TIVES FOR PROMOTING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUE D LIBERALLY; AND SINCE A PROVISION FOR PROMOTING ECON OMIC GROWTH HAS TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY, THE RESTRIC TION ON IT TOO HAS TO BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO ADVANCE THE OBJECT IVE OF THE PROVISION AND NOT TO FRUSTRATE IT. BROACH DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES GINNING AND PRESSING SOCIETY LTD. V/S CIT [1989] 177 ITR PAGE 418 (SC) HELD, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THA T THE OBJECT OF SECTION 81 (I) WAS TO ENCOURAGE AND PROMO TE THE GROWTH OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND CONSEQUENTLY A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION HAD TO BE GIVEN TO THE OPERATI ON OF THAT PROVISION. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 81 (I) OPERA TED TO EXCLUDE FROM THE EXEMPTION THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH C OULD BE REGARDED AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE ACTIV ITIES ENUMERATED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (F) OF SECTION 81(I). IF THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION WAS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES MENTIONED IN THOSE CLAUSES, THE PROVISO DID NOT APPLY. THE GINNING AND PRESSING WAS PART OF THE INT EGRAL PROCESS OF MARKETING. IT WAS AN ACTIVITY INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO THE MARKETING OF THE PRODUCE OF ITS ME MBERS -- ----------- THE SALE OF THE COTTON WAS EFFECTED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND NOT TO ITS MEMBE RS. THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FORM THE ACTIVITY OF THE ENTIRE B USINESS ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 6 OF GINNING AND PRESSING OF COTTON AND MARKETING IT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 81 (I) (C ). CIT AMRITSAR V/S STRABOARD MFG. CO. LTD [1989] 177 ITR PAGE 431 (SC) HELD, THE PROVISION FOR REBATE AND OTHER CONCESSION S HAS BEEN MADE IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE PURP OSE OF ENCOURAGING THE SETTING UP OF NEW INDUSTRIES AND THE INDUSTRIES ARE THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT SCHE DULES. WHEN THE SCHEDULES REFER TO 'PAPER AND PULP', THEY IN FACT INTEND TO REFER TO THE PAPER AND PULP INDUSTRY . THE EXPRESSION HAS BEEN USED COMPREHENSIVELY SO AS TO INCLUDE NEWSPRINT, PAPERBOARD AND STRAWBOARD WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PAPER'. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESPO NDENT COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO HIGHER REBATE FROM THE BASI C RATE OF TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1965-66, DEVELOPMENT REBATE AT A HIGHER RATE AND THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTIO N FROM ITS PROFITS UNDER SECTION 80E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1996-67, AND THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION FROM ITS PROF ITS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967-68 IN RELATION TO STRAWBOA RD MANUFACTURE AS A PRIORITY INDUSTRY. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIO N OF TH4E ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ALL OWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 5.6 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5.6 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE AP PELLANT. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS ISSUE IS REGARDING THE QUE STION AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS AN AS SESSEE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONORAB LE CBDT CIRCULAR. ADMITTEDLY THE CBDT HAS EXTENDED THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF INCOME TA X ASSESSEES IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE APPELLANT IS ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CCIT, ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 7 AHMEDABAD. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED LEGAL PRECEDENTS PLA CED BEFORE ME AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATI ON OF TAXING STATUTES PROVIDING FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMEN T IN A WAY SO AS TO ADVANCE OBJECTIVE AND NOT TO FRUSTRATE IT AS ENUNCIATED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASIONS. 5.6 BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE I WOULD LIKE TO DELVE INTO THE INTENTS AND OBVIOUSLY OWING TO HE AVY FLOODS IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT THERE WAS DISRUPTION OF WORK AND LIFE. THE BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED THE IMPERATIVE N EED FOR GRANTING MORE TIME TO THE ASSESSEES TO PREPARE THEIR RETURN AND FILE THE SAME WITH CONVENIENTLY ALL THE NECESSARY REQUIRED DATA IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION FOR THEM. THE JURISDICTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICE IS GENERALLY ALIGNED WITH ADMINIS TRATIVE BIFURCATION OF THE INDIAN UNION. FOR ANY REASONS IF THERE IS NO INCOME TAX OFFICE IN A PARTICULAR AREA OR REGION OWING TO ANY CAUSE THE JURISDICTION OVER THAT AREA IS ASS IGNED TO ANOTHER INCOME TAX COMMISSIONERATE AS DEEMED PROPER BY THE BOARD. FOR EXAMPLE PARDI TOWN DO NOT HAVE AN INCOME TAX OFFICE BUT ALL THE ASSESSEES OF PARDI AR E ASSESSED AT VAPI. SIMILARLY THERE IS NO INCOME TAX OFFICE IN DANG DISTRICT AND THEY ARE ASSESSED AT VALSAD. H ENCE THEY ARE KNOWN AS AN ASSESSEE IN VALSAD DISTRICT. T HE BOARD HAS BROUGHT OUT THE CIRCULAR WHOSE INTENTION IS BENEVOLENT IN NATURE. IT IS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEES TO PREPARE AND FILE THEIR RETURN OF INCOME IN VARIOUS OFFICES FALLING JURISDICTION OF CCIT (ADMINISTRATION) AHMED ABAD EVEN THOUGH THE WORK IN THE REGION HAS BEEN DIS RUPTED BY HEAVY FLOODS. MORE OVER EVEN DAMAN IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SENSE WAS ALSO SEVERELY AFFECTED BY FLOOD AND TORRENTIAL RAINS. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO IMAGI NE THAT A STATUTE LIKE INCOME TAX CAN DIFFERENTIATE ASSESSEES FOR THE SAME HARDSHIP CAUSED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RESIDENC E OR LOCATION. 'ASSESSEE' MEANS ONE WHO IS ASSESSED AND 'ASSESSEE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT' MEANS ONE WHO IS ASSESSED IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. IN THE PRESENT CA SE UNDER APPEAL ORIGINALLY THE INCOME TAX OFFICE AT VA PI ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 8 WHICH IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CIT VALSAD AND C CIT SURAT HAS EXERCISED AND EVEN TODAY EXERCISES JURISD ICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES AS REGARDS ITS ASSESSMENT. FURTH ER THE PAN & TAN DETAILS OF THE APPELLANT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLANT IN T HE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO LOCATED AT AHMEDABAD IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE ASSESSED TO TAX EVEN LITERALLY IN THE STATE OF GUAJRAT ONLY. I HAVE ALSO PURSUED THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS PLACED BEFORE ME ENUNCIATING LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUT E PROVIDING FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND ON A COMBINED READING OF BOTH THE ABOVE MENTIONED CBDT ORDERS AND THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS I AM OF THE OP INION THAT THE APPELLANT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME TAX ASSESSEE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT AS ENVISAGED IN TH E ABOVE MENTIONED CBDT ORDERS AND ACCORDINGLY THE CBDT ORDER NO. F. NO. 220/5/2006-ITA-II DATED 13-10-2006 EXTENDING THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RET URN OF INCOME TO 31-12-2006 IN CASE OF THE INCOME TAX ASSE SSEE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT IS BINDING ON THE AO. THE A PPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 6. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE SITUATED IN DAMAN AND THE B OARD CIRCULAR HAS NOT EXTENDED THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, THER EFORE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN WHICH THE SAME FACTS HAVE BEEN REITER ATED. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT INCOME TAX OFFICE AT DAMAN IS NOT EV EN INDEPENDENT OFFICE FROM THAT OF INCOME TAX OFFICE AT VAPI. VAPI IS UNDER JURISDICTION OF CIT, VALSAD AND CCIT, SURAT. THE DE SIGNATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I N QUESTION IS ITO, VAPI, WARD-4, DAMAN. THE SEAL OF ACKNOWLEDGEME NT ON THE ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 9 RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01-12-200 6 MENTIONED SEAL OF INCOME TAX OFFICE, VAPI, WARD-4, DAMAN. THE AREA CODE AND JURISDICTION IN TAN AND PAN OF THE ASSESSEE MENTION GUJARAT WITH REFERENCE TO DAMAN. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE FACTS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CBDT CONSIDERING THE REPORTS ON DISRUPTION CAUSED DUE TO HEAVY RAINS AND FLOODS IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT EXTENDED THE DUE DAT E FOR FILING OF RETURN FROM 31-10-2006 TO 31-12-2006 IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX ASSESSEES IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEES WHO CARRIED ON BUSINESS IN DAMAN ARE ASSE SSED OR ASSESSABLE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT BY INCOME TAX OF FICE SITUATED AT VAPI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF AO , STATUS, INCOME AND IN CASES OF NON-COOPERATE, THE ASSESSEES HAVING INCOME OF MORE THAN RS.5 LACS ARE ASSESSED A T VAPI AND THE SMALL ASSESSEES ARE ASSESSED AT THE OFFICE AT VAPI, WARD -4, DAMAN. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICE, VAPI, WARD-4, DAMAN FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INCOME TAX O FFICER, VAPI WHO IS IN JURISDICTION OF CIT, VALSAD AND CCIT, SURAT AND CCIT, AHMEDABAD WHICH ARE SITUATED IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE PAN AND TAN DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY INDICATED THAT TH E JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LIES AT GUJARAT ONLY. EVEN THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHO DECIDED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AT DAMAN IS SITUATED AT VALS AD (GUJARAT). THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN IS FILED IN T HE PAPER BOOK TO ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 10 SHOW THAT RETURN IS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF INCOME T AX OFFICE, VAPI, WARD-4, DAMAN ON 01-12-2006 AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DESIGNATED AS INCOME TAX OF FICER, VAPI, WARD-4, DAMAN. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IS T HEREFORE, CORRECT THAT FOR ALL PURPOSES THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AT V API (STATE OF GUJARAT). THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TY AT DAMAN AND CONCURRENTLY AT VAPI WHICH ADMITTEDLY FALLS IN THE JURISDICTION OF STATE OF GUJARAT AS NOTED ABOVE. FOR ALL PRACTICAL INTENT AND PURPOSES THE CASES OF DAMAN FALLS IN THE JURISDICTION OF VAPI AN D VALSAD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE ASSESSED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF STATE OF GUJARAT. THUS, THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT APPLIE S TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECI ATION OF THE FACTS AND CBDT CIRCULAR AND THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIO NS EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE, RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E BY GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT. NO INFIRMITY IS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1634/AHD/2009 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1635/AHD/2009(M/S. A. KUMAR INDUSTRIES) 9. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO.1, CHALLENGED THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,96 ,758/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT AC T. ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 11 10. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS S AME AS IS CONSIDERED IN ITA NO.1634/AHD/2009. THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALSO EXPLAINED THE SAME FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ABOVE IN THE OTHER APPEAL. CONSIDERING T HE FACTS GIVEN IN ITA NO.1634/AHD/2009 AND BY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, GRO UND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. ON GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DE LETION OF ADDITION OF RS.40,081/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. PARA 7.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT(A) WOULD INDICATE THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED C IT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREAFTER DIRECTED THE AO TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING I NCOME FROM THE BUSINESS. THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.40,081/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, INFRUCTUOUS AND IS ACCORDINGL Y DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1635/AHD/2009 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1634 AND 1635/AHD/2009 THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS PACKWELL PACKAGING THE ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS M/S. A. KUMAR INDUST RIES 12 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-08-2011 SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD