Asstt. Comm. Of Income Tax Circle 1, Margao V. M/s. Macbrout Engineering P. Ltd., Goa

ITA 214/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 21424114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANJUL BARTHAKUR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJUNATH HEGDE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 214/PNJ/2013 : (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. MACBROUT ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., D - 2/5, MARGAO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SAN JOSE DE AREAL, SALCETE, GOA (RESPONDENT) PAN : AADCM6795L APPELLANT BY : BANJUL BARTHAKUR, DR RESPONDENT BY : MANJUNATH HEGDE, CA DATE OF HEARING : 10/12/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 /12/2013 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL : 1. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DT. 24.5.2013. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80 - IB AMOUNTING TO RS.57,94,074/ - . 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOT ED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 77/PNJ/2013 FOR THE A.Y 2006 - 07 DT. 13.9.2013 IN WHICH THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : 2 ITA NO. 214/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) 3.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOO KING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF MACHINE COMPONENTS VIS - - VIS SPARES, COMPRESSOR PARTS, NOZZLE RINGS AND OTHER TURBO MACHINERY PARTS. THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED IN INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD AREA AS NOTIFIED IN 8 TH SCHEDULE OF THE ACT AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 AND THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR OF THE CLAIM. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YS 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR WAS ASKED WHETHER IN A.Y. 2004 - 05 THE DEPARTMENT HAD OBJECTED OR RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ACCEPTED FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05. WE FIND THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4) WAS ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ASSESSEES CASE. THEREFORE, WHEN IT IS ALLOWED IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE QUALIFIES T O BE REGARDED AS MANUFACTURE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05. THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY WOULD APPLY AND HENCE IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4) F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BY HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS MANUFACTURE MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT, 336 ITR 287. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT, WE DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 .12.2013. SD/ - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 1 /12/ 2013 *SSL* 3 ITA NO. 214/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER SR. P RIVATE S ECRETARY ITAT, PANAJI, GOA