The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji., Panaji V. M/s Lift Controls (P) Ltd. Ponda, Ponda

ITA 168/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1233 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH S MUTAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP BHANDARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 168 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 20 1 3 - 1 4 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI GOA. VS. M/S. LIFT CONTROLS (P) LTD. , NO.4, PONDA COMMERCE CENTRE, PONDA GOA. PAN NO. AAACL 6371 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP BHANDARI C A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 14 / 0 9 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 / 0 9 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , PANAJI - 1 IN ITA NO. E - FILING 931821351180116 , DATED 17 /0 5 /201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI SANDEEP BHANDARI, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL BEING NON - ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(4) IN RESPECT OF UNIT - II OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN 2 ITA NO. 168/PAN/2016 CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO.147 TO 152/PNJ/2014 , DATED 04/09/2014 . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT . 4 . W E HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE S IN THE R E V E NUES APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 147 TO 152/PNJ/2014 , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 4.9 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE NOTED THAT ONCE THE WIRE IS CUT AND STRIPPED AFTER GOING THROUGH DIFFERENT PROCESS AND TESTING AN ENTIRELY NEW PR ODUCT COMES WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT UTILITY WHICH IS BEING USED IN ELECTRONIC INDUSTRY FOR ELEVATORS. THIS WIRE HARNESS HAS INDEPENDENT IDENTITY AND CAN BE SOLD IN THE MARKET. THIS PRODUCT NO MORE REMAINS THE ORDINARY WIRE. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. A R THAT UNIT - II IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF A SEPARATE PRODUCT. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LD. DR THAT IF TWO UNITS ARE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SAME ROOF EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE HAVING SEPARATE IDENTITY THEY CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAK ING. BOTH THE UNITS ARE HAVING INDEPENDENT IDENTITY, MANUFACTURING DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, HAVING DIFFERENT MACHINERY. THEY ARE NOT INTER - DEPENDENT FOR MANUFACTURING THEIR PRODUCT, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE UNITS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIT BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE NEW UNIT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FORMED BY TRANSFERRING TO THE NEW BUSINESS MACHINERY AND PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR AN Y PURPOSE. IN RESPECT OF THE CONDITION ABOUT THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES, WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR - CUT FINDING THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN 10 EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN UNIT - II IN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACT AND CASUAL LABOUR. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS AND BILLS. THE LD. DR EVEN THOUGH VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB, COULD NOT ADDUC E ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR 3 ITA NO. 168/PAN/2016 EVIDENCE WHICH MAY COMPEL US TO REVERSE THE FINDING GIVEN BY CIT(A). WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE STAND S CONF IR MED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REV E NUE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , THE 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. M/S. LIFT CONTROLS (P) LTD., NO.4, PONDA COMMERCE CENTRE, PONDA GOA. 2 . THE REVENUE. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI GOA. 3 . THE PR. CIT, PANAJI. 4 . THE CIT(A) , PANAJI - 1, GOA. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI