DCIT CIR 7(3)(2), MUMBAI V. PRINCE PIPES & FITTINGS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2103/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8440 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2103/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) THE DCIT, CIR.7(3)(2), ROOM NO.669A, AAYKAR BHAVAN,M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 ...... APPELLANT VS. M/S. PRINCE PIPES & FITTINGS PVT. LTD. 4 TH FLOOR, B-WING, RUBY HOUSE, J.K.SAWANT MARG, DADAR (W), MUMBAI -400 028. PAN:AAACP 2319J .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAM TIWARI RESPONDENT BY : MS. MRUGAKSHI K. JOSHI DATE OF HEARING : 24/08/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/11/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE PERTAI NING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A) -13, MUMBAI DATED 27/12/2016, WHICH IN TUR N ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 17/ 10/2012. 2 ITA NO. 2103/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) 2. IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE DIF FERENT UNITS OF MACHINERY INSTALLED IN THE SAME PREMISES HAVING COMMON POWER CONNECTION AND WITHOUT SEGREGATING THE INPUT MATERIAL, LABOUR FORC E, POWER INSTALLATIONS AND OTHER AMENITIES, WOULD CONSTITUTE INDEPENDENT UNITS OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA/IB?' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN PLACING RELIANCE OF ORD ER IN 1TA NO. 3082 & 5488/MUM/2010 DATED 9.2.2010 AND 5.10.2011 IN THE A SSESSEE'S OWN CASE WHEN THE SAID ITAT ORDERS ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE R EVENUE AND CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 1TXA/659/2 013 AND ITXA/501/2012.' 3. ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS OF A PPEAL, BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE RELATES TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,02,31,199/-. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS A COMMON GROUND B ETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALL OWED BY THE CIT(A) BASED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 VIDE ITA NOS. 3082/MUM/2010 DATED 09/02/2010 AND ITA NO.5488/MUM/2010 DATED 05/ 10/2011 RESPECTIVELY, AND THAT SUCH DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUN AL CONTINUE TO HOLD THE FIELD AS THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY, AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED-OFF IN THE SA ID LIGHT. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 VIDE ITA NOS.4 163- 4164/MUM/2008 DATED 14/07/2009,+ 3 ITA NO. 2103/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. SO HOWEVER, IN ORDER IMP ART TO COMPLETENESS TO THE ORDER, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT. 5.1 THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORAT ED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS INTER- ALIA ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PVC PIPES, FITTINGS AN D VALVES, ETC. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE A CT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROFITS OF UNIT NOS. 2 & 5 ON THE GROUND THAT A LL THE FIVE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY, UNIT NOS.1,2,3,4 &5 WERE IN FACT L IABLE TO BE CONSTRUED AS A SINGLE UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS IN LINE WITH THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TIES IN THE PAST YEARS. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS OF 2006-07 AND 2007-08, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDERS D ATED 09/02/2010(SUPRA) AND 05/10/2011(SUPRA) HELD THAT A LL THE UNITS WERE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE UNITS AND PROFITS OF THE RE SPECTIVE UNITS WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0 IB OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07(SUPRA) HAS BEEN EXTRACTED B Y THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION SHOWS THAT THE TR IBUNAL BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05 & 2005-06(SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT SELF. 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND CONSIDER ING THAT THE PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON THE CIT(A) CONTINUE TO HOLD THE FIELD, INASMUCH AS, THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY ANY HIGHER AU THORITY, IN OUR VIEW, 4 ITA NO. 2103/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) THE CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WE HEREBY AFFIRM. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/11/2017. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 10/11/2017 VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI