M/s. Zincollied (India) Ltd., Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(2), Baroda

ITA 2623/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67953 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKITA BRAHMBHATT
• Keywords: Source of fund; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER #./ I.T.A. NO.2623/AHD/2010 ( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S.ZIONCOLLIED (INDIA) SYNERGY HOUSE SUBHANPURA BARODA / VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3 BARODA !* #./+, #./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFZ 0860 H ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : MS. NIKITA BRAHMBHATT, C.A. ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS $'2 1 & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 18/11/2013 34) 1 & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/11/2013 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, BARODA (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 08/07/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL ARE MUTUAL LY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, C OMMENCED UNDER INVALID EXERCISE OF POWERS U/S.147 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SUBSIDY GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF SALES TAX EXEMPTION IS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN TAXING A SUM OF RS.65,70,676/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX CONSIDERING THE SAME AS REVENUE RECEIPT INSTEAD OF CAPITAL RECE IPT CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERR ED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN CHARGI NG INTEREST U/S.234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERR ED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN IN ITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 5. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES A RIGHT TO ADD TO OR AMEND, A LTER, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S.14 3(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2009, THERE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF NOTIONAL SALES TAX LIABILITY, NOTI ONAL GAIN DUE TO EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(4) AND ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SHORT TEM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS ORDER, FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED T HE APPEAL. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSE E IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 21/09/200 3, THEREBY THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. 2. VIDE GROUND NO.1, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGE D THE ACTION OF AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO THE AS THE ACT). W E MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS N OT PRESSED. 3. VIDE GROUND NO.2,A THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF AO IN TREATING THE SUBSIDY GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN FORM OF SALES TAX EXEMPTION AS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE APPE LLANT HAS TREATED THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE A ND ACCORDINGLY NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. 4. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION IS COVERED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE DECISION OF TH E AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR AYS 2004-05 AN D 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 24-03-2010 (REFERRED AS ANENXURE-I ). 5. SINCE THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED WE RELY ON THE SUBMISSION MADE FOR EARLIER YEARS AND NOT MAKING ANY FRESH SUBMISSION. HOWEVER, WE RESERVE OUR RIGHT TO CONTEND THE MATTER IN FURTHER APPEAL. 6. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITION AL GROUND OF APPEAL DATED 20 TH OCTOBER, 2010 REQUESTING TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/ S.80IB OF THE ACT ON SUBSIDY GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN FORM OF SALES TAX EXEMPTION AS SUBSIDY IS TREATED REVENUE IN NATURE B Y THE DEPARTMENT. 7. IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF AO DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2011 (REFERRED AS ANNEXURE-II), THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESS ED. 3.1. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MS.NIKITA BRAHM BHATT, C.A. REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE THROUGH M/S.K.C. MEHTA & CO.CAS HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION. ON THE CONTRARY, SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. 4. FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASS ESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED AS THE INSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE. LD.SR.DR HAS NO ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - OBJECTION. THEREFORE, AFTER HEARING THE REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE PARTIES, GROUND NO.1 IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST TREATING THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION AS REVENUE IN NATURE INSTEAD OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AS CON SIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 2 1/09/2013 ARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TR EATING THE SUBSIDY GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN FORM OF SALES TAX EXEMP TION AS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT HAS TREATED THE SUBSIDY RECE IVED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS COVERED AGAINST T HE APPELLANT BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD (CAMP AT BAR ODA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2004-05 & 2005-06 (IN I TA NOS.999,2467 & 3426/AHD/2008) ORDER DATED 24/03/2010. IT IS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR EARLIER YEARS WERE REITERATED AND NOT MAKI NG ANY FRESH SUBMISSION. HOWEVER, RESERVE OUR RIGHT TO CONTE ND THE MATTER IN FURTHER APPEAL. 5.1. THE LD.SR.DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE MATTER IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, TH IS GROUND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.999, 2467 & 3426/AHD/2008 FOR AYS 2004-05 & 2005-06(SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTS, ARGUMEN TS ADVANCED AND DECISIONS CITED. THE FACT TO BE NOTED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NTO RECEIVED ANY SUBSIDY FROM THE GOVERNMENT BUT IS CLA IMING THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE GOODS SOLD INCLUDES SALES TAX ALSO AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF SALES-TAX, TH AT PART OF THE SALES-TAX SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE SUBSIDY RECEIVED FR OM THE GOVERNMENT AND SINCE SAID NOTIONAL SUBSIDY WAS GRANTED TO SET UP AN INDUSTRY IN A NOTIFIED AREA PRIOR TO CERTAIN DATE THE SAID NOTION AL SUBSIDY IS CLAIMED TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPT. THE CLAIM IS BASED MAINLY R ELYING ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE BEFORE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., 88 I TD 273 : 82 TTJ (MUM.)(SB). THERE ALSO THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT I T CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE RECEIVED SUBSIDY IN THE FORM OF WAIVER OF SALE S-TAX AND WAS HELD TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPT. BENCH THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASS ESSEE TO FILE THE COPY OF THE SCHEME CLAIMED WHEREBY SAID RELIANCE INDUSTR IES LTD. WAS GRANTED SALES-TAX EXEMPTION OR SO-CALLED SUBSIDY BU T THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DECLARED HIS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE SAME . WE ARE, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO COMPARE WHAT WAS THE SCHEME OF BENEFIT GR ANTED TO RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. PURSUANT TO THE SCHEME OF GOVERNMEN T OF MAHARASHTRA. AT ANY RATE THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E SAID CASE IN PARA 10 REGARDING FACTUAL POSITION WAS AS FOLLOWS: (A) BEFORE THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTIO N 41 OF THE BOMBAY SALES TAX ACT GRANTING EXEMPTION QUA CERTAIN CLASS OF GOODS FROM THE PAYMENT OF SALES-TAX, ON EACH UNIT O F TURNOVER VALUING RS.100 THERE WAS EMBEDDED ON SALES RECEIPTS AMOUNT OF RS.4 BY WAY OF SALES-TAX LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERING SUM OF RS.96 FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX . (B) DURING THE PERIOD OF EXEMPTION FOR THE SAME UNI T OF TURNOVER VALUING RS.100 THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS.96 FOR I NCOME-TAX, IT APPROPRIATES RS.4 AGAINST SUBSIDY. IF THE REVENUE S STAND IS ACCEPTED THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE OFFERING SUM O F RS.100 AS TAXABLE RECEIPT. (C) EVEN AFTER THE EXEMPTION PERIOD WHEN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BILLS ARE RAISED CONTINUE T HE SAME WAY, THE POSITION IS JUST LIKE THAT GIVEN IN (A) I.E.RS. 96 BEING OFFERED FOR TAXATION. 32.2 FROM THE ABOVE IT WILL BE SEEN THAT BEFORE, E XEMPTION, DURING EXEMPTION AND AFTER EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSEE IS OFFERING AN AMOUNT OF RS.96 BY WAY OF TAXABLE RECEIPTS. ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - 8.1. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 17 ALSO NOTED THAT THE MAHARASHTRA SCHEME UNLIKE ANDHRA PRADESH AND MADHYA PRADESH SCHEME WER E COMPLETELY FOCUSED ON LOCATION OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE AMOUNT OF FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THESE TWIN OBJECTIVES WERE SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED TO ALLURE THE PROSPECTIVE INVESTOR TO MAKE LARGE SCALE FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE INTERIOR BACKWARD AREAS OF THE ST ATE. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHERE THE SUBSIDY IS GIVEN FOR SETTING UP OR EXPANSION OF INDUSTRY IN A BACKWARD AREA, IT WILL BE CAPITAL IRRESPECTIVE OF MODALITY OR SOURCE OF FUNDS THROUGH OR FROM WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND THAT IF MONIES ARE GIVEN FOR ASSISTING AS SESSEE IN CARRYING OUT BUSINESS OPERATIONS ONLY AFTER, AND CONDITIONAL UPO N, COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION, IT WOULD BE REVENUE RECEIPT. APPLYING THE SAID DECISION IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE SCHEME AS PROD UCED BEFORE US AS NOTED BOVE IS TO EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF SALES-TAX O N SALE OF GOODS MANUFACTURED IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN AND DI U BY ANY INDUSTRY WHETHER SMALL SCALE, MEDIUM SCALE OR LARGE SCALE FO R 15 YEARS, 10 YEARS OR 5 YEARS RESPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF FIRST SALE . THE FURTHER CONDITION STIPULATED THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY OR CONFIRME D PURCHASE ORDER FOR PLANT AND MACHINERY SHALL BE PLACED BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2000 AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION SHALL COMMENCE ON OR BEFORE 3 1 ST DECEMBER 2002. IT NOWHERE REFERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANY SPECIFIED AREA NOR IT RELATES TO FOR ANY CAPITAL COST. THE ASSESSEE I S MERELY GRANTED EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF SALES-TAX IF THE COMMERCI AL PRODUCTION COMMENCES ON OR BEFORE 31 ST DECEMBER, 2002 IN THE ENTIRE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN & DIU. THEREFORE, EVEN APPLYING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, SINCE THE SOCALLED BENEF IT IN THE FORM OF EXEMPTION FROM SALES-TAX WAS AVAILABLE ONLY AFTER A ND CONDITIONAL OPTION COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION, THE SAME WOULD B E ON REVENUE FILED. BY GRANTING EXEMPTION FROM SALES-TAX, THE A SSESSEE CAN SELL GOODS AT CHEAPER RATE WHICH CAN COMPETE IN THE MARKET WIT H OTHER ESTABLISHED SUPPLIERS. THEREFORE, IN A WAY IT WAS A BENEFIT GR ANTED IN CARRYING ON THE OPERATION OR ASSISTING IN CARRYING OUT THE BUS INESS OPERATION COMPETENTLY. THEREFORE, EVEN IF SUCH NOTIONAL BENE FIT IS TO BE TREATED AS SUBSIDY AS HELD BY SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, STILL THE SAME WOULD BE ON REVENUE FILED AND NOT CAPITAL RECEIPT. 8.2. HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD., 286 ITR 1 ANALYSIS THE SC HEME OF SALES-TAX EXEMPTION WHICH WAS EXTRACTED IN PARA 38 OF THE ORD ER. AS PER THE EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION OF PUNJAB GOVERNMENT, GROUP OF INDUSTRIES WHICH ARE SET UP IN A CATEGORY AREA ON OR AFTER 1 ST OCTOBER, 1992 AND ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - GOODS PRODUCED BY THEM SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PAY MENT OF SALES-TAX FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS COMMENCING FROM THE DATE O F PRODUCTION AND IN CASE OF INDUSTRIES SET UP IN B CATEGORY AREA AFTE R 1 ST OCTOBER, 1992 WERE EXEMPT FORM PAYMENT OF SALES-TAX FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS COMMENCING FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRS T TIME SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT TOTAL SALES-TAX EXEMPTION SHALL NOT EXCEED CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THEIR FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT. IN S UCH A SITUATION HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AFTER APPLYING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS (SUPRA) AND REFERRING TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS HE LD THAT THE SALES-TAX SUBSIDY WAS REVENUE RECEIPT AND NOT CAPITAL RECEIPT AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL:- (1) CIT VS. CHHINDWARA FUELS, 245 ITR 9 (CAL.); (2) JAGAPATHY ART PICTURES VS. CIT, 240 ITR 625 (M AD.); (3) SHREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. VS. CIT, 240 ITR 106. (4) CIT VS. NEO SACK LTD., 148 TAXMAN 603 (MP); (5) CIT VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., 257 ITR 241 (DEL) (6) CIT VS. PONNI SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD., 260 ITR 605 (MAD.); (7) CIT VS. PREMIER PROTEINS LTD., 277 ITR 406 (MP) ; (8) SAROJA MILLS LTD. VS. CIT, 220 ITR 626 (MAD.); (9) KALPANA PALACE VS. CIT, 275 ITR 365 (ALL.); & (10) CIT VS. BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD., 238 ITR 445 (CAL.) WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE BENEFITS ACCRUING TO T HE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF SALES-TAX EXEMPTION WERE INTENDED TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RUN THE BUSINESS MORE PROFITABLY AND THEREFORE, ARE TO BE TREATED AS IN REVENUE FILED AND HENCE NOT EXEMPT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 FAILS. 6.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL IS REJECTED. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND I N RESPECT OF THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF TH E ACT, 1961 ON SUBSIDY GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF SALES TAX C ONSIDERED AS REVENUE RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - 7.1. IN THIS REGARD, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E VIDE LETTER DATED 21/09/2013 IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPLI CATION FOR ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL DATED 20/10/2010 REQUESTING TO ALL OW THE DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT ON SUBSIDY GRANTED TO THE APPE LLANT IN FORM OF SALES TAX EXEMPTION AS SUBSIDY IS TREATED REVENUE IN NATU RE BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 21/09/2 013 THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. MS. NIKITA BRAHMBHATT, C.A. HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE SAI D LETTER. THE SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HERSEL F HAS REQUESTED NOT TO PRESS THIS GROUND, HE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR LEAVING THIS GROUND AS NOT PRESSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SINCE THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS GROUND, THEREFORE THE SAME IS REJECTE D AS NOT PRESSED. 9. THIRD GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTERE ST. THIS BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIF IC ADJUDICATION. 10. FOURTH GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF INITIAL OF PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10.1 THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. O N THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS PRE-MATURE. ITA NO.2623/AHD /2010 M/S.ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 9 - 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.SR.DR. S INCE THE GROUND BEING PRE-MATURE, THE SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ($ %&) ! ! ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/11/2013 8.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $; / CONCERNED CIT 4. $;() / THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA 5. 9'%< .& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <( =2 / GUARD FILE. 5$ 5$ 5$ 5$ / BY ORDER, /9& .& //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / #+ #+ #+ #+ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 19.11.13(DICTATION-PAD 10-P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 20.11.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.22.11.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.11.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER