ITO, Nurpur V. M/s Himachal Steel & wire, Kangra

ITA 30/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 3021514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTADR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.28 TO 30/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 TO 2008-09) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S HIMACHAL STEEL & WIRE, NURPUR (HP), G.T.ROAD, DAMTAL, DISTT. KANGRA (HP). PAN: AAEFH7333R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA,DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.02.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 21.10.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09 AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,30,178/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS AFTER HEARING LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE, WHO CONCEDED THAT SIM ILAR ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE . 2 4. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASS ESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOS ED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF DRAWI NG WIRES OF THINNER GAUGE FROM STEEL, COPPER AND ALUMINUM WIRES AND ROD S OF THICKER GAUGES AND FURTHER CARRIED ON THE PROCESS OF ANNEALING, PI CKLING AND GALVANIZING. THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED ITS UNIT IN BACKWARD AREA AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. T HE FIRST YEAR OF UNIT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (APPEALS) IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOW N BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. TE CHNOWELD INDS. DECIDED ON 27.2.2003 IN ELT 155 PAGE 209. THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.383/CHANDI/2009 IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN BUNCH OF APPEALS WITH LE AD ORDER IN ITA NO.215/CHANDI/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 IN THE CASE OF J.B. CONDUCTORS & CABLES VS. ITO, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ALSO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN COLLECTOR OF C ENTRAL EXCISE VS. TECHNOWELD INDS. (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL HELD THE AS SESSEE TO BE ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND CONSEQUENTLY EN TITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE TR IBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. HOWEVER, AS AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT 3 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ABOVE-SAID R ATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 8. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 IN ITA NO.383/ CHANDI/2009 AND ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE GROUND RAISED IN THESE APPEALS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IC OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE. THE PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MANUFACTURE OF WIRES WAS HELD TO BE NOT AMOUNTING TO MANUFACTURE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE H AS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), WE UPH OLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 I C OF THE ACT AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09 FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4 5 BE THAT AS IT MAY, CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95-IT(B) DAT ED JANUARY 29, 1997, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE CONTROVERSY.