M/s. Plasto Pack Industries, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2945/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4294 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. PLASTO PACK INDUSTRIES, 945, SECTOR-A, POCKET-B, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAFFP 3293F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, SHRI ADITYA KUMAR, RAHUL CHAURASIA. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURENDER PAL, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 23 10 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 10 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.03.2015, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIII, NEW DELH I FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: - 1.THAT THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2015 PASSED U/S.250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. CIT(A)-13 NEW DELHI IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUST IFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWIN G A SUM OF RS.22,18,091/- CLAIMED U/S.80IC OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM IS NOT AT ALL PR ODUCING OR I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 2 MANUFACTURING ANY ARTICLE OR THING ELIGIBLE FOR CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE SAME REASONING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.80IC WAS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WHICH I SSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IC HAS BEEN AL LOWED AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION. THUS, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS STRONGLY RELI ED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6-07 TO 2009-10 PASSED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2018, IT IS S EEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED EXACTLY THE SAME FA CTS AS WAS THERE IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF RE ADY REFERENCE ARE AS UNDER; 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PLASTIC PACKAGING MATE RIALS SINCE 1998 AT ITS UNIT LOCATED IN BADDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH . SINCE ITS MANUFACTURING FACILITY WAS LOCATED IN BADDI INDUSTR IAL AREA WHICH WAS NOTIFIED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY , VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 7 TH JANUARY, 2003, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR MAKING A CLAIM U/S 80IC FOR ITS MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY. IT WAS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTM ENT AND HAS BEEN FILED CENVAT RETURN AND ALSO RETURN UNDER THE VAT TAX ACT, I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 3 BEFORE HIMACHAL PRADESH AUTHORITIES. IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER, IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TEAM O F INCOME TAX OFFICIAL HAS VISITED THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AND GO DOWNS WHERE THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING CARRI ED OUT. ON INSPECTION THE SAID TEAM OBSERVED THAT NO MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITY IS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEE, S HRI GIRISH CHANDER AND SHRI MASOOD ALI BEG, PRODUCTION/QUALITY MANAGER WAS RECORDED ON OATH RELEVANT EXTRACT OF WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM THE SAID STATEMENT, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY EN GAGED IN PACKAGING FOR M/S. GILLETTE INDIA LTD. AND IT IS ON LY DOING A JOB WORK. THUS, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, AND THEREFORE, DEDUCTION U/ S.80IC IS NOT APPLICABLE. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE A SSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING AND T HE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE M/S. GILLETTE INDIA LT D. AND HOW SUCH PACKAGING INVOLVES MECHANICAL PROCESS. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIO N THAT IT IS NOT ANY KIND OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. 4.1 IN THE EARLIER YEARS, LD. CIT(A) HAD NOTED T HAT THIS ISSUE WAS INQUIRED IN DETAILED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREIN THE DETAILED INQUIRY WAS MADE THROUGH AO AND REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT FOR AND AFTER DETAI LED DISCUSSION AND ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT ASSESS EES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IC WAS ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE S AME PRECEDENCE AND DISCUSSION, THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALL TH E YEARS HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. HOWEVER, IN THIS YEAR , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRO DUCING ANY I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 4 NEW PRODUCT AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT MANUFA CTURING OF ARTICLE OR THING IS DONE TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IC. 4.2 FIRST OF ALL, WE FIND THAT SUCH AN OBSERVATI ON OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE BECAUSE ONCE IN THE EARL IER YEARS RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10 IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN MANUFACT URING AND SAME PRODUCTS ARE MANUFACTURED IN THIS YEAR ALSO, I .E., PLASTIC PACKAGING MATERIALS, THEN WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN FAC TS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IC CANNOT BE DISALLOWED TH AT ARTICLE MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DEALT AND DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: - 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AND FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS MATERIAL REFERRED TO AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AS SESSEE FIRM HAD UNDERTAKEN A SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005- 06 AND IN THAT YEAR THE ISSUE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S.80IC HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WE FIND THAT THE M ACHINE WHICH WERE ADDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FOR THE PURPO SE OF MANUFACTURING OF PACKAGING MATERIAL AND DOING THE J OB WORK WERE AS UNDER: MACHINERY 1. BOX STRAPPING MACHINE 2. CUTTING MACHINE 3. DRILLING MACHINE 4. FORMING MACHINE 5. PAD PRINTING MACHINE 6. SHARING MACHINE I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 5 7. TAPING MACHINE 8. WELDING MACHINE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE DEDUCTION IN T HAT YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT THE NEW MACHINERIES PURCHASED BY THE AS SESSEE WERE LESS THAN 50% AS REQUIRED U/S.80IC. HOWEVER, REBUTT ING THE SAID OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE ENTIRE DETAILS BASED ON WHICH THE REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN PROCEED INGS U/S. 250(4), THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOU CHERS WHICH WERE EXAMINED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WERE FOUND TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH FIGURES OF PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNTS ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN FAV OUR OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S .250(4) THE ASSESSEE SUB STANTIATED ITS CLAIM BY FILING THE BILLS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AL ONG WITH DETAILS OF CERTIFICATE OF EXPANSION ISSUED BY NATIONAL RESEARC H & TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM PARWANOO. IT HAS ALSO FILED APPROVAL OF REVISED CAPACITY ISSUED BY G.M. DISTT. INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, S OLAN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE EXPANSION OF PLAN T AND MACHINERY TOOK PLACE IN THE F. Y 2003-04 AND 2004-0 5 FROM WHERE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS INC REASED FROM THE INITIAL PLANT AND MACHINERY OF THE CONCERN WHEN THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB WAS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SO PRODUCED BIL LS OF OTHER PLANT AND MACHINERY PURCHASED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 AFTER CONSIDERATION OF WHICH THE PLANT AND MACHI NERY APPEARS TO BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN 50% DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 ITSELF, THE MACHINERY ADDED DURING THE YEAR INCL UDES MACHINE (ELEVATOR) STACKER WORTH RS.2,15,280/- AND ELECTRON IC WEIGHING SCALE OF RS.6,900/- WHICH IS USED IN THE MANUFACTUR ING PROCESS I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 6 WHOSE PURCHASE BILLS HAVE BEEN FILED NOW AND EXAMIN ED. THUS, FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED EVIDENCES REGARDING THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF PLANT AND MA CHINERY WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES FILED DURING THE APPEAL AND EXAMINED U/S 250(4) OF THE IT ACT. SUBMITTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS'. 9. BASED ON THIS REMAND REPORT AND OTHER MATERIAL F ACTS ON RECORD, LD. CIT (A) HAD GIVEN A FAVOURABLE FINDING IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY HIM. THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERAT ION. IT IS RECAPITULATED THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN REFERRED TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 250. IN TH E REPORT DATED 19.05.2009, AFTER MAKING SUITABLE ENQUIRIES AND EXA MINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ENHANCEMENT IN THE P LANT AND MACHINERY HAS BEEN MORE THAN 50% IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AND AFTER A P OSITIVE FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MET THIS CRUCIAL CONDITION, BASED ON EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS, THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IC NEEDS TO BE AL LOWED. 10. THUS, THE INITIAL CLAIM OF 80IC HAS BEEN ALLOW ED AFTER DUE INQUIRY AND EXAMINATION OF FACTS ON RECORD AND SUCH ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION HAS ATTAINED FINALITY, BECAUSE AS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST THE SAID ORDER DATED 17.11.2009. WHENCE IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IC HAS BEEN ALLOWED, THEN IN THE SU BSEQUENT YEAR SUCH A CLAIM CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 7 12. COMING TO THE OBSERVATION AND THE FACTS AS NOTE D IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENTS OF TWO OF THE EM PLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHEREIN THEY HAVE STATED THAT THEY AR E DOING THE JOB WORK OF PACKAGING OF LOOSE PRODUCTS IN BOXES FOR WH ICH THEY ARE BEING PAID JOB CHARGES FROM M/S. GILLETTE INDIA LTD . AND APART FROM THAT THEY HAVE ALSO SAID THAT RAW MATERIAL ARE ALSO AVAILABLE BY M/S. GILLETTE INDIA LTD. WHICH THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS PACK ING THEM. BASED ON THESE STATEMENTS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF PA CKAGING; THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U /S.80IC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THE PROC ESS OF PACKAGING AND REPACKAGING IS A COMPLICATED TECHNICAL PROCESS WHICH INVOLVES CONTROL OF THERMAL AND PNEUMATIC POWER SPECIFIED TI ME REGULATION AND IT IS NOT MERELY PACKAGING OF A PRODUCT IN A BO XES. FROM THE PERUSAL OF A NOTE AND THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT AN D THE CHART SHOWING PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - THE FIRM IS PRIMARILY INTO MANUFACTURING AND PRODU CTION OF PLASTIC THERMOFORMED MATERIALS. IT IS DONE WITH USE OF VARI OUS TYPES OF PLASTIC MATERIAL/SHEETS AS BASE, FORMED AND SHAPED INTO SPECIFIC DESIGNS AND SHAPES AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF VARIO US CUSTOMERS AND THEIR USAGE. THE PROCESS IS CARRIED OUT BY USE OF SPECIFIC DIES AND MOULDS AS PER THE CUSTOMER DESIGN PERFORMED ON DIFFERENT CONVERSION MACHINES BY USE OF THERMAL, PNEUMATIC AN D HYDRAULIC TECHNOLOGY WITH SPECIFIED TIME, TEMPERATURE PRESSUR E AND VACUUM REGULATION. A DETAILED PROCESS CHARTED IS DRAWN OUT AND ENCLOSED. FURTHER WE ARE ALSO INTO MAKING OF TOOLS, DYES AND MOULDS FOR VARIOUS SUCH OPERATIONS INCLUDING FORMING, SEALING, CUTTING, ETC. WE ALSO FABRICATE AND PROVIDE VARIOUS MACHINES FOR CAR RYING OUT SIMILAR OPERATIONS. THIS INCLUDES OUR WORKING ON A FULL-FLE DGED TOOL ROOM I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 8 OPERATION FOR WHICH WE HAVE NUMEROUS WORKING MACHIN ES WE ALSO UPGRADE AND RECONDITION SUCH MACHINES AND SELL. LIST OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF RAW MATERIALS USED FOR M AKING TOOLS, DIES, MOULDS & MACHINES ARE LIKE ALUMINIUM, EPOXY'S , WOODEN BLOCKS AND SHEETS, MDF SHEETS, DIFFERENT TYPE OF RU BBER SHEETS (NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC), MARKING PINS, ETC. ALL TYP ES OF ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, PNEUMATICS, HYDRAULICS AND OTHER TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS, ARTICLES, PARTS, ACCESSORIES AND CONSUMABLES REQUIR ED FOR THE ABOVE MACHINES, INCLUDING HEATERS, MOTORS, CABLES, AIR BL OWING AND LIGHTING ACCESSORIES. EACH DIE NEEDS DIFFERENT ACTI VITIES TO BE DONE AND NO SPECIFIC PROCESS CAN BE DEFINED. WE HAVE ALSO ENTERED INTO A ONE STOP OPERATION OF S UCH ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF OUR CUSTOMERS WHEREBY WE PACK THEIR PRODU CTS OR CARRYOUT THEIR ACTIVITY OF INSTALLATION AS PER THEIR REQUIRE MENT TO COMPLEMENT OUR ABOVE PRODUCTIONS. IN THIS CASE, WHERE MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS HAVE TAKEN A SINGLE BILL FOR COMPLETE PRODUCTION AN D ALSO SEPARATE BILLS FOR PROVIDING MATERIAL AND SEPARATE BILL FOR EXECUTION OF PACKAGING ALSO, OFF LATE THERE HAVE BEEN SUCH OPERA TIONS, WHERE THE MATERIALS WERE PROVIDED BY THE CUSTOMER OR THEIR AP PROVED VENDORS AND WE ONLY DID THE TECHNICAL OPERATION OF HANDLING THEIR MATERIAL AND CONVERTING IT INTO A SELLABLE PROPOSITION. 13. BESIDES THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVE N THE DETAILS OF THE RAW MATERIAL PURCHASED, PRODUCT FLOW CHART AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF PACKING OF ARTICLES. FROM THE FURTHER PERUSAL OF TH E RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TURNOVER FROM VARIOUS ACTIV ITIES IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - S. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) AMOUNT (IN RS.) (A) MANUFACTURE OF PACKAGING MATERIAL 1,36,58,621/ - (B) (I) PACKAGING OF GOODS ON JOB WORK BASIS 63,43,995 I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 9 (B)(II) SALE OF PACKING MATERIAL WITH JOB WORK 18,31,202 81,75,197 (C) MANUFACTURE OF DIES/MOULDS 6,53,000 TOTAL 2,24,86,818 APART FROM THAT, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSE E FIRM HAS BEEN CATEGORIZED UNDER THE CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT AS A MANUFACTURER, BECAUSE IT MANUFACTURES DYES AND MOULDS FOR MAKING AND DESIGNING THE PACKAGING MATERIALS. IT HAS ALSO GRANTED APPROV AL FROM DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, SOLAN. ALL THOSE DETAILS OF APPR OVAL, CERTIFICATES AND NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE ENTIRE FACTS AND MATERIAL WH ICH HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN RE BUTTED AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO DRAW INFERENCE THAT MERE PACKAGING DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING. IF ASSESSEE IS MA KING PACKAGING MATERIAL AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PRODUCT WITH THE AID AND HELP OF VARIOUS KINDS OF MACHINES AS INCORPORATED ABOVE AND IT IS ALSO REGISTERED AS MANUFACTURER UNDER THE VARIOUS LAWS, THEN SUCH A GENERAL INFERENCE BASED ON STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES C ANNOT BE GIVEN MUCH CREDENCE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANTIAL MERITS IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF PACKAGING MATERIAL, THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IS UPHOLD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 14. SINCE EXACTLY SIMILAR GROUND HAS BEEN RAISE D IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09, WHEREI N SIMILAR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DENIED AFTER REOPENING THE CASE U/S.147, THEREFORE, OUR FINDING GIVEN WILL APPLY HE RE MUTATIS MUTANDIS. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT (A) IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IC. I.T.A. NO.2945/DEL/2015 10 5. THUS, ON IDENTICAL FACTS, CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S.80 IC OF IT ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2018 IN ITA NO.215/DEL/2014 AND IN ITA NOS. 5151, 5152, 5153/DEL/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2009-10, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, IN WHICH LD. JUDICIAL MEMBER WAS ALSO A PARTY. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THIS PRECEDENT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.8 0IC FOR THIS YEAR (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) IS ALSO HEREBY ACCEP TED BECAUSE NO DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO NOTICE BY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. ACCORDINGLY , THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 30 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- [ANADEE NATH MISHRA] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH OCTOBER, 2018 PKK: