The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu V. Sh. Deepak Kumar Handa, Jammu

ITA 254/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7772 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KANWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 254(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEA R: 2012-13 THE DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE-2, RAIL HEAD COMPLEX, PANAMA CHOWK, JAMMU. VS. SH. DEEPAK KUMAR HANDA, PROP M/S BAIBHAV ORNAMENTS, H. NO.91, WARD NO.12, HANUMAN GALI, KACHI CHAWANI, JAMMU. PAN:AANPH5157Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. S. S. KANWA L (D.R.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. P. N. ARORA (ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 11/10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 /10/2017 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 27.01.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2012-13. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (I) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION MADE U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO 22K GOLD DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO DE DUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT, 1961 KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S TUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD . ] VS. CTO(1960) 11 STC 827. (III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/ S 80IB O F THE ACT, 1961 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F DY. CIT VS. PIO FOOD ITA NO.254/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2012- 13 2 PACKER WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE IDENTITY OR ORIGINAL COMMODITY CO NSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ANOTHER ARTICLE ALTHOUGH IT HAS UNDERGONE A DEGR EE OF PROCESSING, STILL IT MUST BE REGARDED HAVING RETAINED THE ORIGINAL IDENT ITY. 3. THE LD. DR, HEAVILY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE O RDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS LD. AR PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AND HAD CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AN D THE ACTIVITIES WERE RELATING TO CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO ORNAMENTS WAS NOT A MA NUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. C IT(A) AND SUBMITTED VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER RELYING UPON THE CASE LAWS DECIDED BY ITAT, AMIRTSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SANJAY JAIN, ITA NO.96(ASR)/ 2015 AND ALSO OTHER CASE LAWS ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE O PERATIVE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER AS CONTAINED IN PARA 4 IS REPRODUCED BELOW. . 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 80IB AMOUNTING TO RS.6200367/-. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE CONVERSION OF 24K GOLD INTO 22K GOLD ORNAMENT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANU FACTURE AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. ON THE OT HER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT BEFORE ME THAT IN SIMILAR CASE HONBLE INCOME TAX, TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SHRI SANJAY ITA NO.254/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2012- 13 3 JAIN, PROP. M/S. GANESH JEWELERS, JAMMU IN I.T.A. N O.407(ASR)/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED RE LEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY THE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDER ED BY THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS . FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN AT PAGE 3&4 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ' I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS TO SUCCEED. EVEN BEFORE THE DEFINITION OF MANUFA CTURING WAS NOT ON THE STATUTE THE DIRECT DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT AND HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI AS REFERRED ABOVE HELD THAT CONVERSION OF GO LD INTO ORNAMENTS AMOUNTED TO 'MANUFACTURE.' IN THE CASE OF M/S LOVEL ESH JAIN AND ORS. 204, TAXMAN 134 THE ISSUE WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER:- 'THE ACTIVITY FOR CONVERTING GOLD BRICKS, BISCUITS OR BARS, INTO JEWELLERY AMOUNTS TO 'PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF A NEW ARTI CLE. THE GOLD, SILVER OR PLATINIUMJN BAR, BISCUITS OR BRICK FORM, IS CONVERT ED BY MANUAL LABOUR AND BY THE USE QFJMPLEMENTS / TOOLS OR BY MACHUNERY,CU LMINATING INTO AN ENTIRELY NEW ARTICLE OR THING CALLED JEWELLERY OR O RNAMENTS. JEWELLERY IS A WEARABLE ITEM AND IS USED BY BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. TH IS PROCESS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO_ ABOVE IN PARAGRAPH 6.4, WHILE ADV ERTING TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE CASE OF SHASHI KANT MITTAL. JEWELLERY / ORNAMENTS IN COMMON, PARLANCE OR IN COMMERCIAL TERMS AS DISTINCT IDENTIT Y, TREATED AS NEW_ ARTICLE AND NOT THE SAME AS RAW OR STANDARD GOLD IN THE FORM OF BRICKS , BISCUITS OR BARS. AS A RESULT OF THE SAID PROCESSIN G A COMMERCIALLY DIFFERENT SALEABLE PRODUCT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. JEWELLERY HA S A DISTINCTIVE NAME, CHARACTER AND USE. IT CAN NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY. THE ACTIVITY OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO ' MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION AND THEREFORE, QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A/ 10B.' ALSO, IN THE CASE OF M/S TRIBUWAN PASS BHIMJEE JHAV ERI 110TTJ942, THE HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI HAS HELD AS UNDER: DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB - ALLOWABILITY - INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING OR BRANCH OFFICE - ASSESSEE'S UNIT AT HYDERABAD IS GETTING TH E JEWELLERY MADE FROM KARIGARS AT MUMBAI UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTRO L OF ITS EMPLOYEES WITH THE HELP OF MUMBAI OFFICE (HEAD OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE) - OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE HYDERABAD UNIT CANNOT BE IGNORED MERELY BECAUSE THE MUMBAI OFFICE FACILITATING ITS ACTIVITIES - THEREFO RE, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB IN RESPECT OF HYDERABAD UNIT.' IN THE CASE OF PUNEET SACHDEVA IN APPEAL NO. 253/10 -11 DATED 29/02/2012, I HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO GOLD ORNAMENTS WAS MANUFACTURING RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI AS REFERRED ABOVE. ITA NO.254/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2012- 13 4 FURTHER, THE DEFINITION OF 'MANUFACTURE' IS INSERTE D W.E.F 01.04.2009 IN SECTION 2 (24BA ) OF I. T. ACT AS UNDER 'MANUFACTUR E' WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS MEANS A CHANGE IN NON LIVING PHYSICAL OB JECT OR ARTICLE OR THING : A) RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ART ICLE OR THING INTO ANEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFER ENT NAME, CHARACTER AND USE, OR B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT OB JECT OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STR UCTURE. THE CONDITIONS ARE ALTERNATE TO EACH OTHER AND ON S ATISFYING ANY ONE OF THE TWO THE ACTIVITY WOULE BE TRETED AS ' MANUFA CTURE'. IN THE PRESENT CASE 2 ( 29BA ) ( A ) OF I.T.A ACT IS CLEARLY SATIS FIED AS THERE IS TRANSFORMATION OF 24K GOLD INTO NEW AND DISTINCT OB JECT AS ORNAMENT WHICH HAS DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER IN THE USAGE. THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF 'MANUF ACTURE'. IN THE PRESENT CASE 2(29BA) (A) OF I. T. ACT IS CLEARLY SATISFIED AS THERE IS TRANSFORMATION OF 24K GOLD INTO NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT AS ORNAMENT W HICH HAS DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER IN AND USAGE. THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF ' MANU FACTURE. HIS RELIANCE IS ON CASE LAWS WHICH ARE NOT DIRECT ON THE ISSUE WHER EAS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE ITAT, MUMABI A RE DIRECT ON THE ISSUE WHICH ARE RELIED BY ME IN CASE OF PUNEET SACHDEV IN APPEAL NO. 253/10-11 DATED 29/02/2012. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN 'MANUFACTURE' AND WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ION U/S. 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I AM NOT GOING INTO THE ISSUE OF CO NSISTENCY AS RAISED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE AS THE MATTER STAND S DECIDED ON MERITS. GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 STANDS DISCLOSED'. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORD ER PASSED BY LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD TH E IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE.' FURTHER, HON'BLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR AGA IN IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAMMU VS. M/S PADMA ORNAMENTS, JAIN BAZAR, JAMMU VIDE ITS ORDER ITA NO.138(ASR)/2015 DATED 10/12/201 5 FOR AY 2009-10 HAS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER IN THE CASE OF ITO, JAMMU VS. SANJAY JAIN, JAMMU (SUPRA). SINCE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS ALREADY BEE N DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR IN THE TWO CASES CITED ABOVE AND THERE IS NO ADVERSE ORDER AFTER THAT, I A LSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF ITAT AND DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80 IB . IN EFFECT, THE AP PEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.254/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2012- 13 5 5. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE FIND THAT ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS AS TO WHETHER THE CONVERSION OF 24K GOLD INTO 22K GOLD JEWELLERY AMOU NTS TO MANUFACTURE AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE EARLIER ORDERS OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY JAIN (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE SIM ILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE BENCH IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE SIMILAR ISS UE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SH. LOKESH HANDA, IN ITA NO.332(ASR)/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 10. 12.2015 WHEREIN THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF RE VENUE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.407(ASR)/2012, DATED 19.02.20913 , IN THE CASE OF ITO WARDS 2(3), JAMMU VS. SH. SANJAY JAIN, JAMMU (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE AFORESAID ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS FOLLOW S: 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE VA RIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E AND FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS TO SUCCEED. EVEN BEFORE THE DEFIN ITION OF MANUFACTURING WAS NOT ON THE STATUTE THE DIRECT D ECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI AS REFERRED ABOVE HELD THAT CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO ORNAMENTS A MOUNTED TO MANUFACTURE. IN THE CASE OF M/S. LOVELESH JAIN A ND OTHERS ITA NO.254/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2012- 13 6 204 TAXMAN 134 THE ISSUE WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSE D BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS UNDER: THE ACTIVITY FOR CONVERTING GOLD BRICKS, BISCUITS OR BARS, INTO JEWELLERY AMOUNTS TO PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF A NEW ARTICLE. THE GOLD, SILVER OR PLATINUM IN BAR, BISCUITS OR B RICK FORM, IS CONVERTED BY MANUAL LABOUR AND BY THE USE OF IMPLEM ENTS/TOOLS OR BY MACHINERY, CULMINATING INTO AN ENTIRELY NEW ART ICLE/THING CALLED JEWELLERY OR ORNAMENTS. JEWELLERY IS A WEARABLE ITE M AND IS USED BY BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN REFERR ED TO ABOVE IN PARAGRAPH 6.4, WHILE ADVERTING TO THE FACTUAL MA TRIX IN THE CASE OF SHASHI KANT MITTAL.JEWELLERY/ORNAMENTS IN COMMON PA RLANCE OR IN COMMERCIAL TERMS HAS A DISTINCT IDENTITY, TREATED A S A NEW ARTICLE AND NOT THE SAME AS RAW OR STANDARD GOLD IN THE FOR M OF BRICKS, BISCUITS OR BARS. AS A RESULT OF THE SAID PROCESSIN G A COMMERCIALLY DIFFERENT SALEABLE PRODUCT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. JE WELLERY HAS A DISTINCTIVE NAME, CHARACTER AND USE. IT CAN NO LONG ER BE REGARDED AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY, HAS SEPARATE CONSUMERS AND IS A NEW COMMERCIAL COMMODITY. THE ACTIVITY OF THE RESPONDEN T ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION AND, THEREFOR E, QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A/10B. 4.1. ALSO, IN THE CASE OF M/S. TRIBHUWAN DASS BHIMJ EE JHAVERI 110 TTJ 942, THE HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI HAS HELD AS UNDE R: DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ALLOW ABILITY INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING OR BRANCH OFFICE-ASSESSEES UNIT AT HYDERABAD IS GETTI NG THE JEWELLERY MADE FROM KARIGARS AT MUMBAI UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF ITS EMPLOYEES WITH THE HELP OF MUMBAI OFFICE (HEAD OFFICE) OF THE ASSESSEE- OPERATIONS CARRIED ON BY THE HYDERABAD U NIT CANNOT BE IGNORED MERELY BECAUSE THE MUMBAI OFFICE IS FACIL ITATING ITS ACTIVITIES THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IN RESPECT OF HYDERABAD UNIT. 4.2. IN THE CASE OF PUNEET SACHDEVA IN APPEAL NO.25 3/10-11 DATED 29.02.2012, I HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO GOLD ORNAMENTS WAS MANUFACTURING, RELYING ON THE ORDER O F HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI AS REFERRED ABOVE. 4.3. FURTHER, THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACURE IS IN SERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2009 IN SECTION 2(24BA) OF I.T.ACT AS UNDER: MANUFACTURE WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS MEANS A CHANGE IN NON-LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING:- A) RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICL E OR THING INTO A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER AND USE, OR B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJEC T OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INT EGRAL STRUCTURE. ITA NO.254/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2012- 13 7 4.4. THE CONDITIONS ARE ALTERNATE TO EACH OTHER AND ON S ATISFYING ANY ONE OF THE TWO THE ACTIVITY WOULD BE TREATED AS MANUFA CTURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE 2(29BA)(A) OF I.T. ACT IS CLEARLY SATI SFIED AS THERE IS TRANSFORMATION OF24 K GOLD INTO NEW AND DISTINCT OB JECT AS ORNAMENT WHICH HAS DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER IN AND USAGE. 4.5. THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF MANUF ACTURE. HIS RELIANCE IS ON CASE LAWS WHICH ARE NOT DIRECT ON TH E ISSUE WHEREAS THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HONB LE ITAT, MUMBAI ARE DIRECT ON THE ISSUE WHICH ARE RELIED BY ME IN C ASE OF PUNEET SACHDEV IN APPEAL NO.253/10-11 DATED 29.02.2012. FO LLOWING THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFAC TURE AND WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF I.T.ACT. I AM NOT GOING INTO THE ISSUE OF CONSISTENCY AS RAISED BY THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE OF ASSESSEE AS THE MATTER STANDS DECIDED ON MERITS. GR OUND NO. 1 TO 6 STANDS DISCLOSED. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REAS ONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS ITAT , MUMBAI BENCH. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HA VE BEEN EITHER UPSET, OR EVEN STAYED ON APPEAL. THE FACTS T HEREIN HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN STATED TO BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE BEFO RE US. 7. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD-2(3), JAMMU VS. SANJAY JAIN, JAMMU (SUPRA) WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AND IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE & TAKEN IN G ROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO GENERAL SALES TAX AND ARE DISTING UISHABLE FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREAS THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NO.254/ASR/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2012- 13 8 THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECE DENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THER EFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/10/2017 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T.S. KA POOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24/10/2017 /GP/SR. PS . COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER