The ACIT,Mehsana Circle, Mehsana V. M/s. Olympic Laminates Pvt.Ltd., Gandhinagar

ITA 1718/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72900 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1718/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA V/S . M/S OLYMPIC LAMINATES PVT. LTD. BLOCK NO. 49-50, VILLAGE: KAROLI, KALOL, GANDHINAGAR PAN NO. A AACO3029Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) / BY APPELLANT SHRI O. P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI GAURAV NAHTA, A.R. ! '#$ /DATE OF HEARING 03.02.2014 %&' '#$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.02.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- GANDHINAGAR, DATED 11.05.2012 AND THE SUBSTANTIVE G ROUND IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (1) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,53,30,992/-, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE IT ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 1718/AHD/12 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE IS SUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.02.2013 PRONOUNCED B Y THE ITAT A BENCH, AHMADABAD IN ITA NO. 1841/2011 TITLED AS ACIT VS. M/S OLYMPIC LAMINATES PVT. LTD., I.E. ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT L IMIT OF INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY TO SSI UNIT IS OF RS. 5 CRORES AND NOT RS. 1 CRORE AS PER PROVISIONS OF 11B OF INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT AN D REGULATION) ACT, 1951 APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS SMALL SC ALE INDUSTRIES AS PROVIDED IN MICRO TO THE SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRIS ES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2006 AND ASSESSEE'S INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINE RY BEING OF RS. 3,20,87,250/- AS ON 31.03.2008 WHICH IS BELOW THE L IMIT OF RS. 5 CRORES, WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IN THIS RESPECT IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. 2(I). OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN ON PARA NOS . 5.1 & 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE IS SUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE PAST YEAR, RELEV ANT PORTIONS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5.1 THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS STARTED OPERATIONS O N 15/12/2000. AS PER NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDU STRIES, THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING PROVISIONALLY REGISTERED WITH STATE AUT HORITIES PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION DATED 24/12/1999, WILL ENJOY THE STATU S AS SSI UNITS AND THE INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY SHOULD NOT EXCEED S TO RS. 3 CRORES, NOT WITHSTANDING THE REVISED INVESTMENT LIMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE NOTIFIED ON 24/12/1999. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE FACTS AND STATU S OF SSI IS DISCUSSED BY ME IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR AY 2006-07 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)GNR/212/201011 DATED 27/04/2011. 5.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE LIMIT S FOR INVESTMENTS IN PLANT & MACHINERIES WERE INCREASED TO RS. 5 CRORES W.E.F. 2ND OCTOBER ITA NO. 1718/AHD/12 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 3 2006. THUS, THE INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERIES OF RS. 3,40,17,039/- IS WITHIN THE LIMITS I.E. DOES NOT EXCEEDS RS. 5 CR ORES AS PER PROVISIONS OF 11B OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) AC T 1951 APPLICABLE TO THE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES AND THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS CONNE CTION, THE FACTS AND STATUS OF SSI IS DISCUSSED BY ME IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FO R AY 2008-09 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)GNR/213/2010-11 DATED 29/04/2011. THEREFO RE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 80-IB MADE ON ALLEGED GROUND MAY KINDLY BE DEL ETED. . 8.3 HAVING CONSIDERED THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE O PINION THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LIMIT OF INVESTMENT IN PLA NT & MACHINERY TO SSI UNITS IS OF RS. 5 CRORES AND NOT OF RS. 1CRORE, AS PER PROVISIONS OF 11B OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT, 1951 APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES, AS PRO VIDED IN MICRO SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2006. AFTER CO NSIDERING THE NOTIFIED EXCLUDABLE THE COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE PLA NT & MACHINERY AS ON 31/03/2009 IS OF RS. 3,40,17,039/- , WHICH IS BELOW TO THE LIMIT OF RS. 5 CRORES. THEREFORE THE APPELLANT COMPANY FULFILLS TH E CONDITIONS OF SSI DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS ON RECORDS, THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE APPEL LANT COMPANY, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY FULFIL LS THE CONDITIONS OF SSI DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10, AND IS THEREF ORE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB OF THE I.T. ACT. THE FACTS AND DECISION IS ON THE LINES OF THAT FOR A YEAR 2008-09 IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB OF RS. 1,53,30,9227-. 3. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, SINCE THE ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE RESPE CTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH ITA NO. 1718/AHD/12 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 4 VIDE AN ORDER AS CITED (SUPRA), THEREFORE, ON THE S AME LINES FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06.02.2014 SD/- SD /- (N. S. SAINI) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ( ( ( ( ') ') ') ') *)'' *)'' *)'' *)'' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. -. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. 11 ' 2 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 2- / CIT (A) 5. ) 67 ' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79: ;< / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ( , =/ 1- , ?