M/s Southern Agro Trades and Services P.Ltd, Kottayam V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

ITA 33/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4329 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T J VINCENT
• Assessee Lawyers: MATHEW JOSEPHC A
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA I.T.A.NO.33/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 M/S SOUTHERN AGRO TRADES AND SERVICES P.LTD, KOTTAYAM VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH,C.A RESPONDENT BY SHRI T.J. VINCENT, JR.DR O R D E R PER N.VIJAYAKUMARAN,J.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI DATED 24.10.200 8. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2005-06. 2. THE FACTS RELEVANT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO MPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF TREAD RUB BER. THE PROCESS UNDER QUESTION WERE THE INPUT USED FOR THE PROCESS IS UN-VULCANIZED RUBBER COMPOUND AND THE OUTPUT IS PRE- CURED TREAD RUBBER WHICH IS A DIFFERENT COMMODITY I N CHARACTER AND USE. THE PRE-CURED TREAD RUBBER IS VU LCANIZED AND TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE THE INPUT NAMELY THE RUBB ER COMPOUND IS FALLING UNDER DIFFERENT TARIFF HEAD AND PRE-CURED TREAD RUBBER IS FALLING UNDER OTHER DIFFERENT TARIF F HEAD. UNDER THE CENTRAL EXCISE THIS PROCESS IS MANUFACTUR E. ITA NO. 33 /COCH/2009 2 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U /S 80IB BY EXCLUDING FROM THE PROFIT, THE MOULDING CHARGES RECEIVED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITY OF MOULDING DOES NO T REPRESENT THE COMPLETE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE L .D CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO SUBSCRIBED TO THE VIEW OF THE L.D ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHE WANTS TO DISTINGUISH OF THE ASSESSEE OWN CASE . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AN D CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION INCLUDING TWO ORDERS OF T HE TRIBUNAL WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED BY, ONE IN TH E CASE OF SHRI. GEORGE VARGHESE WHICH FOLLOWED THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S ANCHOR TRADERS PVT LTD, KOTTAYAM , ITA 197/COCH/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE ORDER AGREEING FOR 80IB REDUC TION IS AVAILABLE IN DETAIL IN THE CASE OF SHRI. GEORGE VAR GHESE DATED 19.12.2008, IN PAGE 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE SEE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AUTHOR ITIES ARE TO BE SET ASIDE OR REVERSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE, IS ALLOWED AS CLAIMED THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO GET DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AS CLAIMED. WHILE DOING SO WE REJECT THE ARGUMENT OF THE L.D D.R WHO ATTEMPTED TO REITERATE THE SAME POINTS WHICH THE L.D CIT(APPEALS ) ADOPTED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. (SANJAY ARORA) (N.VIJAYKUMARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER ERNAKULAM, DATED THE 29 TH JUNE,2010. PM. ITA NO. 33 /COCH/2009 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S SOUTHERN AGRO TRADES AND SERVICES P. LTD, P. JOHN ZACHARIA BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-1 2. ASSIST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, K OTTAYAM, 3. CIT(A)-IV,KOCHI. 4. CIT,KOTTAYAM 5. D.R.