The ITO, Ward-1, Vapi V. Shri Ashok V.Parmar, Vapi

ITA 2410/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 241020514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Competent authority
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMADABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 I.T.O., VAPI, WARD-1, SHIVAM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, N.H.8, VAPI. V/S . SHRI ASHOK V. PARMAR, PROP. P&P ALLIED PROCESSING INDUSTRIES, 301, ROYAL TWINS, VAPI PAN NO. ACCPP3258K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI P. L. KUREEL, SR. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI MEHUL SHAH, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 18.09.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.11.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A), VALSAD, ORDER DATED 29.05.2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. T HE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE TRADING AC TIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND NOT APPRECIA TING THE FINDINGS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE ACTIVITY O F THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND OBSERVING TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.13,27,811/-. ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE ACTIVITY O F THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND ALLOWING MANUFACTURING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AMO UNTING TO RS.1,89,602/- AND RS.28,027/- RESPECTIVELY. THE REVENUE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND VIDE LETT ER DATED 02.11.2011, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT FOR TIME BEING IF I T IS CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT ACTIVI TY OF PRINTING ON THE PLASTIC FILMS DURING THE YEAR, SUCH ACTIVITY OF PRINTING ON PLASTIC FILMS IS NOT A MANUFACTURING AC TIVITY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION. THE TECHNICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ADMIT TED FOR HEARING IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC). 2. ALL GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL ARE REVOLVING AR OUND WHETHER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S. 80IB IS FOR MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY OR NOT. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING INDUSTRIAL U NDERTAKING IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF P & P ALLIED PROCESSING INDUSTRIES AND CARRYING OUT PRINTING ACTIVITIES. AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10C CB, THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION FROM 27.12.2002, RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2003-04 AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A.Y. 2005- 06. THE MANUFACTURING UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED IN THE BACKWARD AREA OF DAMAN AND IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT @ 100% FOR INITIAL 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THIS BEING THE THIRD YEAR OF ITS ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 3 MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB @ 100% OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIV ITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SATISFY THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING AN AR TICLE OR THING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. 2. THE MACHINERY OR PLANT INSTALLED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT, AT ANY TIME PREVIOUS TO THE DATE OF INSTALLATI ON BY THE ASSESSEE, USED IN INDIA. 3. THE UNDERTAKING EMPLOYS TEN OR MORE WORKERS IN A MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON WITH THE AID OF POWER, OR EMPLOY S TWENTY OR MORE WORKERS IN A MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON WITHO UT THE AID OF POWER. THE A.O. DEPUTED HIS WARD INSPECTOR ON 06.08.2004 T O VISIT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE AND REPORT IN THE MATTE R. THE WARD INSPECTOR HAS REPORTED AS UNDER: AS PER YOUR DIRECTION, ON 6/8/2007, I HAVE VISITED THE FACTORY PREMISES OF P&P ALLIED PROCESSING INDUSTRIES, SR.NO .13/5, 6, 7 & 11, BUILDING NO.B, GALA NO.8, SHAKTI INDL. ESTATE, DABH EL, DAMAN. HOWEVER, THE FACTORY PREMISES FOUND CLOSED. ON ENQU IRY IN SURROUNDING IT IS LEARNED (HAT THE FACTORY IS NOT F UNCTIONING. THEREFORE, SHRI ASHOK VITHALDAS PARMAR WAS CONTACTE D AND IT WAS BECOME LATE HE WAS REQUESTED TO KEEP THE FACTORY PR EMISES OPEN ON 7/8/2007. THE LETTER ISSUED ON 6/8/2007 WAS SERVED ON HIM AT THE GALA MENTIONED ABOVE, WHEREIN THE PRINTING UNIT OF THE ASSESSE IS FUNCTIONING. DURING THE COURSE OF VISIT FOLLOWING P OINTS WERE NOTICED:- 1. NO WORKERS WERE FOUND IN THE PRINTING UN IT. ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 4 2. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND KEPT IN THE UNIT. 3. NO ACCOUNTANT WAS PRESENT THERE. 4. ONE AKSHAY MAN ENTERPRISES - GRAVURE PRINTING M ACHINE IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. THE PRINTING MACHINE IS HAVING 4 MOTORS, HAVING 2 HP, 1HP, 1HP AND 1HP, TOTALLING TO 5 HP. 5. THERE ARE TWO ELECTRICITY METERS IN THE UNIT. THE METER READINGS AS ON DATE IS AS UNDER;- 1. R:/5/4/28/4/P : 004517 2. R:5/4/28/3/C : 000 6. EXCEPT TWO SMALL ROLLS OF PLASTIC FILMS, NO OTHE R STOCK FOUND. ON THE BASIS OF WARD INSPECTOR REPORT, IT WAS CONCL UDED BY THE A.O. THAT FACTORY WAS NOT FUNCTIONING AS ON 06.08.2007. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSMENT PERTAINED TO A.Y. 05-06. THEREFORE, HE VERIFIED TH E FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE INSPECTORS REPORT. HE ANALYZED ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WHICH WERE RS.9,426/- FOR WHOL E YEAR. WHICH WAS FOUND LOWER COMPARED TO SALE OF RS.30,54,077/-. HE ALSO COMPARED ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WITH M/S. HONEY INDIA CORPORATION, DIV-III , SILVASA AND FINALLY HE HELD THAT ELECTRICITY PAYMENT OF RS.9,426/- WERE FO R MAINTAINING THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION NOT FOR ELECTRICITY UNITS CONSUMED BY TH E ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SHOWING IN SALARY REGI STER TEN WORKERS FOR EVERY MONTH. THESE WORKERS WERE HARDLY WORKING FOR THE A SSESSEE FOR 5 TO 10 DAYS MAXIMUM IN A MONTH. FOR THE REMAINING 20 TO 25 DAY S, THESE PERMANENT WORKERS REMAINING JOBLESS AND WAITING FOR THE NEXT WORKING DAYS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THESE WORKERS WERE REMAINED PRESENT AND WORK WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTA IN THE CORDIAL RELATION. HE ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 5 HAS ALSO REPRODUCED THE SALES REGISTER IN PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FOUND THAT ON CERTAIN DATES THERE WAS NO WORKER. T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND CONCOCTED. I T IS HELD THAT ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS, THERE WAS NO WORKER A VAILABLE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD MANAGED TO GET THE GOODS REACHED THE BUSINESS P REMISES. IF THE DETAILS OF MARCH, 2005, ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE E NTIRE STORY OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SEEN AS TOTALLY INCORRECT. AS PER THE WAGES REGISTER, THE WORKERS WERE REMAINED PRESENT ONLY UPTO 08.03.2005. THE RE MAINING PERIOD OF ENTIRE MONTH NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES COULD THEREFORE, BE CONDUCTED. HOWEVER, FROM 13.03.2005 TO 31.03.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E 16 SALES ON VARIOUS DATES, WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY MAN POWER. THE ASSES SEE IS OWNING ONE SMALL GALA AND 50% OF THE PREMISES WERE OCCUPIED BY THE P RINTING MACHINE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS KEEPING MINIMUM ONE TON OF RAW MATERIAL IN THE SAID PREMISES. THE WARD INSPECTOR HAD NOTICED ONLY TWO SMALL ROLLS OF PLASTIC IN THE PREMISES. IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005, T HE STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS HAD GONE TO THE EXTENT OF 9 TONS AND ON 02.03.2005, IT REACHED TO THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF 10 TONS. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO K EEP SUCH HUGE STOCK IN ITS BUSINESS PREMISES. AFTER 08.03.2005, IN ABSENCE OF ANY WORK, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASE SINCE THERE WOULD BE NO MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITY AFTER 08.03.2005, THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF 5625.7 KGS. OF R AW MATERIALS SHOULD BE THERE AS CLOSING STOCK. BUT AS PER PURCHASE AND SALE REG ISTER, THE CLOSING STOCK HAD BEEN SHOWN OF 917.4 KGS. ONLY. IT WAS HELD THAT AS SESSEE WAS NOT IN ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING BUT WAS IN TRADING ACTIVITIES OF P LASTIC PRINTED ROLLS AND ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 6 CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB UNDER THE CAMOUFLAGE OF P&P ALLIED PROCESSING INDUSTRIES. THEREFORE, DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE A.O. CONSEQUENTLY THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON WAGES OF RS.1, 12,757/-, PRINTING INKS & SOLVANT OF RS.73,627/- AND PAPER CORE OF RS.3,218 /- TOTALING TO RS. 1,89,602/- AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.28,027/- WERE ALS O NOT ALLOWED AND ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING THAT THE LD. A.O. DECIDED THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRY MADE BY THE WARD INSPECTOR ON 06.08.2007 WHEREAS THE CONCERN ASSESSMENT IS RELEVA NT TO F.Y. 2004-05, WHICH MEANS THAT THE INSPECTOR HAD VISITED THE FACT ORY PREMISES AFTER MORE THAN 2 YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE PHYSICAL OBSERVATIO N HAD NOT BEARING WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. FOR CLAIMIN G OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH AS TO WHETHER THE FACTORY WAS FUNCTIONING IN THE RELEVANT YEAR OR NOT. THE ELECTRICITY CONSUMED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SHOWED THAT THERE WAS POWER CONSUMPTION IN TERMS OF UNITS AND THAT AL SO ALMOST THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND THE CONSUMPTION WAS FOUND TO BE BETWEEN 40 0 TO 700 UNITS ON BY- MONTHLY BASIS. IT WAS ALSO SEEN BY HIM FROM THE RE MAND REPORT THAT A.O. DID NOT COMMENT ON EVIDENCES OF POWER BILL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IN REMAND REPORT AGAIN REITERATED THE SAME FACTS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS SHOWED THAT A.O. FAILED TO REBUT THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD TH AT WHEN THERE WAS NO WORK, ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 7 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS SUPERVISING AND UNLOADING THE RAW MATERIAL. THE ABSENCE OF ANY WORKER AT THE TIME OF SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIAL HAS NO BEARING WITH THE CRUCIAL ASPECT OF MANUFACTURING OF GOODS A ND THE A.O. HAD NOT THROWN ANY LIGHT ON THIS ISSUE IN REMAND REPORT. THE A.O. HAD EXAMINED VARIOUS RECORDS BY TRANSPORT RECEIPTS AND REGISTER ALSO HE HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT WORKERS REMAINED PRESENT UPTO 08.03.2005. THE FIND ING OF A.O. ABOUT THE SPACE AVAILABLE FOR STORAGE WAS REBUTTED BY THE ARS BY SUBMITTING THAT THE AVAILABLE SPACE WAS MORE THAN 1000 SQ. FEET WHEREAS , THE REQUIREMENT OF OPERATIONAL AREA WAS ABOUT 200 SQ.FEET. IN THE REM AND REPORT, THE A.O. DID NOT COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, LOOKING IN TO THE VOLUME OF TURNOVER, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT ENOUGH SPACE WAS AVA ILABLE TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED VARIOUS CONFIRMATION LE TTERS FROM THE SUPPLIER OF RAW MATERIAL WHO CONFIRMED TO HAVE SUPPLIED PLAIN T UBES WHEREAS THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM VARIOUS CUSTOMERS STATED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED PRINTED TUBES FROM THE APPELLANT. THE AO FAILED TO CARRY OUT ANY INQUIRY IN THIS REGARD AND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO HE PR OCEEDED ON PRESUMPTION ON THE BASIS OF POWER CONSUMPTION AND P RESENCE OF WORKERS WITHOUT MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY EXCEPT ONE S POT VISIT BY THE INSPECTOR. THE INSPECTOR ALSO REPORTED TO HAVE PRESENCE OF MAC HINERY IN THE FACTORY PREMISES AND THE AO COULD NOT LEAD ANY COGENT EVID ENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENT OF WAGES AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT WERE B OGUS. THE AO HAD NO REPLY TO THE POWER CONSUMPTION IN TERMS OF UNITS AN D THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PRESUME THAT THE POWER CONSUMPTI ON COULD HAVE BEEN FOR ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 8 MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES ONLY AS THE CONSUMPTION OF UNITS RANGING BETWEEN 400 UNITS TO 700 UNITS CANNOT BE A MEAGER CONSUMPTI ON. SUCH A HIGH VOLUME OF CONSUMPTION CAN NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR JUST MAINTEN ANCE OF METER AND IT CAN BE POSSIBLE FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES ONLY. THER EFORE, DESPITE VARIOUS IRREGULARITIES IN MAINTENANCE OF WAGES REGISTER, TH E IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CARRYING OUT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE DENIED. ALL THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THA T SOME MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES MIGHT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE APPEL LANT WHEREAS, THE AO HAS FAILED TO LEAD ANY COGENT EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THIS FACT AND HE PURELY PROCEEDED ON VARIOUS PRESUMPTION AND GUESSWORK. WHE N IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED OUT THEN, THE ASSESSEEE BECOMES ELIGIBLE TO GET DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT SUBJ ECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS. SINCE THE AO HAD DENIED THE CLAIM ON TH E GROUND OF NON MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES ONLY AND WHEN THE EVIDENCE S SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT SUGGESTED THAT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITI ES WERE CARRIED OUT BY HIM, THE ACTION OF THE AO TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON U/S. 801B IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLO W THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.13,27,811/- U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. THUS, THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL WAS ALLOWED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. VEHE MENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND THE INQUIRY MADE BY THE WARD INSPECTOR AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS. THERE IS NO R ELEVANCY BETWEEN INQUIRY MADE BY THE WARD INSPECTOR AND DECISION TAKEN BY TH E A.O. FOR MANUFACTURING ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 9 ACTIVITY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURT HER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN PRINTING OF PLASTIC FILMS WHICH COMES UNDER MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. HE RELIED UPON IN CASE OF CIT VS. CASINO (P) LTD. (1973) 91 ITR 289 (KER) & C IT VS. COMMERCIAL LAWS OF INDIA PVT. LTD. (1977) 107 I TR 822 (MAD). IT WAS HELD THAT A PAPER IS NOT A BOOK, THOUGH IT IS PRINTED ON PAPERS. A PUBLISHER MAY GET THE BOOKS PRINTED FROM ANY PRINTER BUT THE PRINTER IS NOT THE MANUFACTURER BUT A MERE CONTRACTOR. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IS REV ERSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURTS AND HELD AS MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY. THUS, HE PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY IS MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITY. HE FURTHER HAS DRAWN OUT ATTENTION ON PAPER BOOK FILED IN REMA ND REPORT AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) ELECTRICITY BILLS FROM APRIL 04 TO MARCH 05, CONFIRMED FROM VARIOUS SUPPLIERS, CONFIRMED FROM VA RIOUS CUSTOMERS AND COPY OF FACTORY LICENSE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S MANUFACTURING AND RIGHTLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. THUS, HE REQU ESTED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING INDUSTRIAL UNDERT AKING FOR WHICH NECESSARY FACTORY LICENSE WAS GRANTED BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF THE FACTORY OF DAMAN & DIU, UNION TERRITORY ON 08.01.2003 WHICH WAS RENEWE D FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT PRINTING ACTIVITY. THE AUDITOR HAD CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CAR RYING MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN AUDIT REPORT IN THE BACKWARD AREA OF DA MAN AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB @ 100%. PRINTING ACTIVITY AS H ELD BY VARIOUS COURT AS ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2009 A.Y. 05-06 PAGE 10 MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, THE OTHER RELEVANT CONDITIO NS LIKE PLANT WAS NOT USED EARLIER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 10 OR MORE WORK ERS DURING THE YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF LABOUR REGISTER. THE WARD INSPECTOR MADE INQUIRY ON 06.08.2007, WHIC H WAS RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2008-09 WHEREAS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A.Y . 05-06. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD USED POWER CONSUMPT ION MONTHLY BETWEEN 400 TO 700 UNITS ON THE BASIS OF ELECTRICITY BILLS, WHICH WAS SENT TO THE A.O. FOR COMMENT IN REMAND REPORT BUT A.O. DID NOT GIVE ANY FINDING ON IT. THE AREA OF PREMISES WAS MUCH MORE AS ASSESSED BY THE A.O., WHI CH WAS SUFFICIENT TO RUN THE PRINTING PRESS. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2013 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (T.R. MEENA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;