ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2148/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 214820114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K KEDIA SENIOR
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2148/DEL./2012 (FINANCIAL YEAR : 2008-09) ACIT, CIRCLE 51 (1), VS. M/S. SEAGRAM DISTILLERIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. BUILDING NO.8A, 4 TH FLOOR, DLF CYBER CITY PHASE II, GURGAON. (PAN : AAFCS3143N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK CHOPRA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. KEDIA, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM ORDE R OF CIT (APPEALS)- XXX, NEW DELHI DATED 03.02.2012 FOR THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF MANUFACTURE OF POTABLE ALCOHOL AND INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR (IMFL). THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A DISTILLERY AT NASIK AND MANUFACTURES GRAIN NEUTRAL SPIRIT (GNS) FOR CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION FOR ITS BOTTLING OPERATIONS. 3. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BY TAKING THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN- ITA NO.2148/DEL./2012 2 (A) DELETING THE ENTIRE DEMAND OF RS.67,58,058/- R AISED U/S 201(1)/201(1A) R.W.S. 194C RELYING UPON THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS SISTER CONCERN CASE, M /S SEAGRAM MANUFACTURING (P) LTD. WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE DIFFER ENT. (B) NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SUPPLY OF THE P RINTED MATERIAL AS PER PRESCRIBED SPECIFICATION IS COVERED U/S 194C AS EXPRESSED IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 15 OF BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 71 5 DATED 8/8/95. (C) NOT APPRECIATING THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT TH AT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE MANUFACTURER I S NOT OF SALE/PURCHASE OF GOODS BUT THAT OF WORKS CONTRACT W ITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194C OF THE I T ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIG HT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEA L AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 4. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. ALTHOUGH THE REVE NUE HAS TAKEN A GROUND THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. M/S. SEAGRAM MANUFACTURING (P) LTD. WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DECI DED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING THE SLP OF THE REVENUE ARE D IFFERENT BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US TO DISTINGUISH THE FACT S OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND THAT OF M/S. SEAGRAM MANUFACTURING (P) LTD., A GROUP COMPAN Y. THE CIT (A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SEAGRAM MANUFACTURING (P) LTD., WHICH IS A GROUP CONCERN. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS ORDER DATED 17.08.2010 HAS HEL D AS UNDER :- ON EXAMINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ALSO ON EXAMINATION OF THE INVOICES, PURCHASE ORDERS AS WELL AS THE CHALLA NS INDICATING PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE TRANSACTION IN QUEST ION IS A CONTRACT FOR ITA NO.2148/DEL./2012 3 CARRYING OUT WORKS. HENCE, SECTION 194C OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 ['ACT, FOR SHORT] IS NOT ATTRACTED. OUR ATTEN TION, IN FACT, IS INVITED TO THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194C OF THE ACT VIDE FI NANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009, WITH EFFECT CRAM 1-10-2009, WHICH DEFINES 'WO RK' TO INCLUDE MANUFACTURING OR SUPPLYING A PRODUCT ACCORDING TO T HE REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATION OF A CUSTOMER BY USING MATERIAL PURCH ASED FROM SUCH CUSTOMER. IN FACT, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE DEFINIT ION OF THE WORD 'WORK' WILL NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURING OR SUPPLYING A PRODU CT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENT OR SPECIFICATION OF A CUSTOMER BY U SING MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM A PERSON OTHER THAN SUCH CUSTOMER. H OWEVER, THIS AMENDMENT CAME INTO FORCE ONLY W.E.F. 1-10-2009, WH ICH WILL NOT APPLY TO THE PERIOD IN QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE (S). FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PET ITIONS ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED.' SINCE THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY DIFFERENC E IN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE TO THAT OF CIT VS. M/S. SEAGRAM MANUFACTURING (P) LTD., THEREFORE, WE FIND NO FAULT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND WE SUSTAIN TH E SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.