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

ITA 1769/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0551 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIP KR MAJUMDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV MEHTA
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCO UNTANT MEMBER ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA (APPELLANT) VS. M/S OLYMPIC LAMINATES PVT. LTD. BLOCK NO. 49-50, VILLAGE: KAROLI, KALOL, GANDHINAGAR PA NO.AACO3029Q (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SRI PRADIP KR. MAJUMDAR, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI GAURAV MEHTA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 14-02-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28- 02-2013 / ORDER PER : D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A) GANDHINAGAR DATED 27/04/2011. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1769/AHD/2011 A.Y.:-2006-07 ITA NO. 1769/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. OLYMPIC LAMINATES PVT. LTD. 2 (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 92,20,602/-, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED AGGREGATE VALUE OF PLANT AND M ACHINERY IS OF RS. 3,05,11,222/- WHICH IS EXCEEDING THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB FOR SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND WITHDREW THE CLAIM U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO GIVE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY, FACTS OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT COMPA NY, THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS TO SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY AND C LAIM U/S. 80-IB ARE MADE: (I) THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS GOT PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION AS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FROM DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT OF GUJARAT, GANDHINAGAR ON 23/07/1999 (II) AS PER PRESS NOTE NO, 4 BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES; VIDE CIRCULAR F.NO. 10(6) / 97 - IP (VO L. ILL) DATED 14/03/2000 CLARIFIED THAT 'THE UNITS WHICH HAVE OBT AINED PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 1997 AND HAVE TAKEN CONCRETE STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT SUCH IS PREPARATION OF PROJECT REPORT, SANCTION OF LOAN, PURCHASE OF LAND, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, PLACEMENT OF ORDERS FOR PLANT & MACHINERY ETC, PRIOR TO 24 TH DECEMBER, 1999 WOULD CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE SSI ST ATUS SO LONG AS THE INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY DO ES NOT EXCEED RS. 300 LACS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE REVISED INVESTMENT LI MIT OF RS. 100 LACS NOTIFIED ON 24 TH DECEMBER 1999. (III). THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED HAVE BEEN MET IS CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT THE UNIT COMMENCED THE PRODUCTION ON 05/1 2/2000. FURTHER, IN THE APPLICATION FORM WHERE AS ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SHOWN TOTAL PLANT AND MACHINERY AT RS, 1,05,76(000) I.E. OVER RS, 1 CRORE STILL IT WAS GRANTED PERMANENT SMALL SCALE REGISTRA TION VIDE ORDER ITA NO. 1769/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. OLYMPIC LAMINATES PVT. LTD. 3 DATED 12/04/2001. THIS WAS CLEARLY DONE AS THE ENHA NCED LIMIT OF RS. 3 CRORE WAS APPLICABLE TO IT. THE REGISTRATION CONT INUED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. (IV). AS PER NOTIFICATION OF CENTRAL GOVT. - SO 857 (E), DATED 10-12- 1999, THE VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERIES IS TO BE C OMPUTED AFTER EXCLUDING VARIOUS EXPENSES/ ITEMS VIZ: TOOLS, DYES, MOULDS, AND SPARE PARTS, COST OF INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, COST OF GENERATOR SETS, AND EXTRA TRANSFORMER, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FOR INDIGENOUS MACHINERIES, TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW, COST OF STORAGE TA NKS, COST OF FIRE- FIGHTING EQUIPMENTS, ETC, (V). THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FURNISHED WORKING OF INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERIES AS PER NOTIFICATION ALONG WIT H AUDIT REPORT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB (3) (II) IN FORM NO. 10CCB, DULY CERTIFIED BY AUDITORS. THE INVESTMENT IN ELIGIBLE P LANT AND MACHINERIES IS OF RS. 1,28 , 49,101/-, WHICH IS WITHIN THE LIMITS I.E. DOES NOT EXCEEDS RS. 3 CRORES AS PER PROVISIONS OF 11B OF THE INDUST RIES (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT 1951 APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES. (VI). THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, GANDHIN AGAR ISSUED CERTIFICATE ON 28/03/2005 TO THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y AS PERMANENT SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING HOLDING REGISTRA TION NO. 04/07/01176 DT 12/04/2001 FOR MANUFACTURE OF DECORA TIVE LAMINATES- LAMINATES. 8.2.3 HAVING CONSIDERED THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE OP INION THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY PROVISIONALLY REGISTERED AS SSI O N 23/07/1999, AS PER PRESS NOTE / CIRCULAR OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIE S THE LIMIT OF INVESTMENT IN PLANT & APPLICABLE TO THE UNIT IS RS. 300 LACS (ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) AN D NOT RS, 100 LACS; THE COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE PLANT AND MACHINERY IS OF RS, 1,28,49,101/-, WHICH IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS, 3 CR ORES. HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH HAS CONSIDERED THIS ENHANCED LIMIT OF RS, 3 CRORES IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S SHIV AGREVO LTD. (2009) 123 TTJ 4 16. THEREFORE THE APPELLANT COMPANY FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS OF SSI D URING THE ASST. YEAR 2006-07. IT IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE 8O-IB OF RS, 92,20,602/- AS ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 1769/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. OLYMPIC LAMINATES PVT. LTD. 4 4. SINCE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT V ALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2006 IS OF RS. 1,28,49,101/- WHICH IS WITHI N THE LIMITS I.E. DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 3 CRORE AS PER PROV ISIONS OF 11B OF INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1951 APPLICABLE T O THE ASSESSEE BEING AS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES, WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY FUL FILS THE CONDITION OF SSI DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ,THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT , THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS HEREBY UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 28 /02/2013 A.K. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '#