The ITO,Vapi Ward-4, Nani Daman V. M/s. Auto Tuff Safety Glass, Nani Daman

ITA 3335/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73157 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN. VS M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY GLASS, PLOT NO.57/1 (3-A) & 57/1(3-B) DUNETHA, BHENSROL ROAD, NANI DAMAN. PAN: AAJFA 8986C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 18/02/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/03/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FRO M THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), VALSAD, DATED 30.09.2010 AND THE SU BSTANTIVE GROUNDS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT STATING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING FACTORY LICENSE BEFORE IT STARTED MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE POINT THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT HAS COMMENCED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2004, AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. 2. WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 18.12.2009, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSE E FIRM, WHO IS IN THE ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY G LASS. A.Y.2007-08 - 2 - BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF GLASSES HAVING MANUFAC TURING UNIT AT DAMAN, HAS OBTAINED THE LICENSE DATED 3 RD OF JUNE, 2004 FROM THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORY. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDU CTION U/S.80IB OF RS.93,97,565/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 200 5-06 CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WAS REJECTED FOR THE REASON THAT LICENSE TO THE FACTORY WAS ISSUED ON 3 RD OF JUNE, 2004. IN COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 YOUR GOODSELF HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB FOR THE ONLY REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED FACTORY LICENSE AFTER 31.3.2004. ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASS ED BY YOUR GOODSELF AND THE SAME IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD. 2. FURTHER, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUBMIT BEFORE YOU R HONOUR THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB C OMPLIES WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC 80-IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN PARTICULAR THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SATISFIES ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 80-IB. A. IT BEGAN TO MANUFACTURE ARTICLE OR THING B EFORE THE LAST DATE STIPULATED IN SECTION 80-IB. B. INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB IS LOCATED IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN & DIU. THIS AREA IS BACKWA RD AREA SPECIFIED IN THE EIGHTH SCHEDULE TO THE INCOME TAX ACT. C. INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB IS A NEW UNDERTAKING. D. INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITY AND MANUFACTURES / PRODUCES ARTICLE OR THING. E. THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS CARRIED OUT WITH T HE AID OF POWER. F. IT EMPLOYS MORE THAN 10 WORKERS DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. G. THE REQUIRED AUDIT REPORT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDE RTAKING CLAIMING U/S. 80-IB HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM ALO NG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INDUSTRIAL U NDERTAKINGS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB SATISFY ALL THE CONDITIONS LAI D DOWN IN SECTION 80IB AND HENCE IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB. 4. ALSO IT VERY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT OBTAINING FACTORY LICENSE BEFORE 31.3.2004 IS NOT A CONDITION FOR AVAILING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB OF THE ACT. ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY G LASS. A.Y.2007-08 - 3 - 5. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCU MENTS IN SUPPORT OF OUR CLAIM. A. COPY OF SALES TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE . B. COPY OF SSI CERTIFICATE. C. COPY OF POWER RELEASE LETTER. D. COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL. E. COPY OF POLLUTION CONTROL CERTIFICATE. F. COPY OF MANUFACTURING LICENSE ISSUED BY THE D EPT. OF MEDICAL HEALTH ADM. DAMAN. 2.1 THE VEHEMENT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THA T FEW OTHER LICENSES WERE GRANTED BY VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTM ENTS WELL BEFORE 31 ST MARCH, 2004, HENCE, THE MANUFACTURING WAS STARTED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AOS OBJECTI ON WAS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(3) WAS NOT FULFIL LED; HENCE, THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE MATTER WAS CARRI ED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2.2 BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ARGUMENT WAS REITERA TED AND AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLACED ON RECORD WHICH WAS DULY CONSIDERED AND THEREUPON IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: DECISION: SINCE THE HONBLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2005-06 HAS ALREAD Y DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN APPELLANTS FAVOUR AND THE FACT S OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SAME AS THAT OF THE EARLIER YEAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AHD. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO G RANT BENEFITS U/S.80-IB TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THE LAW. THUS THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS ALLOWED. 2.3 FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED AR HAS P LACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING TWO ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, LISTED BELOW: 1. ITO VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY GLASS (ITA NO.891 /AHD/2010, A.Y. 2006-07) ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD ORDER DATED 11.02.2013. 2. AUTO TUFF SAFETY GLASS VS. ITO (ITA NO.1536/AHD /2009, A.Y. 2005-06) ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD ORDER DATED 28.08.2009 (AU THORED BY MY RESPECTED COLLEAGUE) AND HELD AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION TO OBTAIN FACTORY LICENSE FOR GETTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IS NOT A CONDITION ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY G LASS. A.Y.2007-08 - 4 - PRECEDENT. IT IS WELL SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT A CONDITION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE FOR GRANTING CE RTAIN DEDUCTIONS CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY ANY OTHER AUTHORITY. IN THE IN STANT CASE THE PRODUCTION COMMENCED BEFORE 31.03.2004 MAY NOT BE A LEGAL PRODUCTION UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT BUT FOR SAME CON SEQUENCE WILL LIE UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT AND NOT UNDER THE INCOME TA X ACT. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY COMMENCED PRODUCTION BEFORE 31.03.2004 IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT FACTORY LICENSE WAS NOT OBTAINED. THERE FORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AS PER LAW. THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 3. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DR HAS PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS VS. CIT, ITA NO.1623/AHD/ 2009-10 (A.Y.2005-06)(ITAT-AHMEDABAD) D.O.J. 04.07.2013) 2. CIT VS. SAMARTH HEALTHCARE, IN MISC. CIVIL APPLI CATION NO.137 OF 2012 IN TAX APPEAL NO.1125 OF 2010. 3. CIT VS. JOLLY POLYMERS & OTHERS, (2012) 19 TAXMA NN.COM 181 (GUJ) 4. CIT VS. JITSAN ENTERPRISE, (IN TAX APPEAL NO.258 8 OF 2010 (GUJ) 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THIS ISSUE REVOLVE S WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF FACT BECAUSE THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITI ON WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR THE LICENSE BEFORE 31 ST OF MARCH, 2004 AND THE AUDITOR AS PER THE AUDITED REPORT HAD AFFIRMED THAT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAD ALSO COMMENCED ON 26 TH OF MARCH, 2004. HOWEVER, THE CONTROVERSY IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FACTORY LIC ENSE WAS ISSUED BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF THE FACTORY ON 3 RD OF JUNE, 2004. IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS COMMENCED BEFOR E THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED ON 31 ST OF MARCH, 2004, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED SEVERAL EVIDENCES AS LISTED ABOVE. SO THE BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WAS NOT THAT THE PRODUCTION HAD NOT BEEN STARTED BUT THE CONTROVERSY WAS THAT THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED AFT ER THE CLOSE OF THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR; HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STAR T OF MANUFACTURING ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY G LASS. A.Y.2007-08 - 5 - ACTIVITY WAS ALLEGEDLY INCORRECT. IT IS WORTH TO ME NTION AT THIS JUNCTURE THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2 006-07, AFTER APPRECIATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES, THE RE SPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCHES HAVE DECIDED THIS CONTROVERSY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WHILE DECIDING AN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR, I.E., 2007-08 THE JUDICIAL PROPRIETY REQUIRES TO FO LLOW THE EARLIER PRECEDENTS OF THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCHES PRO NOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. FIRSTLY ON THIS BASIS, WE HERE BY AFFIRM THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4.1 AS FAR AS THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED DR ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SANTOSHI POLYMERS IT AT B BENCH HAD NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF JOLLY POLYMERS (SUPRA). WE HAVE EXAMINED THE DECISION OF M/S. JOLLY POLYMERS ( SUPRA) PRONOUNCED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THEREUPON WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE WERE TWO ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE COU RT OUT OF WHICH THE ISSUE WHICH IS IN HAND WAS AS PER QUESTION OF LAW N O. (B) REPRODUCED BELOW: B- WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW AS WELL A S IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WHEN APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO RUN THE FACTORY WAS MADE TO THE FACT ORY INSPECTOR PRIOR TO 31.3.2004 BUT THE ACTUAL LICENSE WAS GRANTED ONLY A FTER THE SAID DATED? 4.2 ON THIS ISSUE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OPINE D AS FOLLOWS: 23. WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT THAT BESIDES THE FACTORI ES ACT, OUTSIDE OF INCOME TAX ACT, THERE MAY BE LARGE NUMBER OF REQUIR EMENTS FOR THE FACTORY OWNER TO BE FULFILLED. ALL SUCH REQUIREMENTS MAY NO T BE FUNDAMENTAL OR SUBSTANTIAL. MERE BREACH OF SOME TECHNICAL PROVISIO N OR A REQUIREMENT WOULD ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY G LASS. A.Y.2007-08 - 6 - NOT IPSO FACTO DISQUALIFY AN ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, WE A RE CONCERNED WITH ONE OF THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF SETTING UP OF A FACTORY I .E. OBTAINING A LICENSE WITHOUT WHICH LEGALLY IT WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE T O SET UP A FACTORY AND TO COMMENCE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH LICENSE, SETTING UP OF FACTORY IS PROHIBITED. SETTING UP A FACTORY WITHOUT LICENSE IS A PENAL OFFENCE. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT FACTORIES ACT MAKES LARGE NUMB ER OF WELFARE MEASURES. TO IMPLEMENT SUCH MEASURES, IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT LICENSING PROCEDURE IS IN PLACE. WHILE EXAMINING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 80IB(4) OF THE ACT, WE CANNOT BE OBLIVION TO SUCH PROVISION. 24. IN THOSE APPEALS WHERE WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HA D NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR FACTORY LICENSE BEFORE 31.3,2004, WE CANNOT HOLD TH AT NECESSARY CONDITIONS UNDER SUB-SECTION(4) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WER E FULFILLED. 27. HOWEVER, IN CASES WHERE THE APPLICATION FOR LIC ENSE WAS ALREADY MADE BEFORE 31.3.2004, BUT OBTAINED SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH LAPSE MUST BE VIEWED AS ONE WHICH IS PURELY TE CHNICAL EVEN WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE THAT GRANT OF LICENSE SUBSEQUENTLY WOULD RELATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DATE OF APPLICATION. WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE TRIBUNAL'S VIEW TO THIS EXTE NT. 28. IN THE RESULT, WE ANSWER QUESTION(A) IN THE NEG ATIVE I.E. IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE -WE ANSWER QUESTIO N(B) IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVE NUE. 5. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED QUESTION NO.( B) IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REV ENUE THEN THE CONTROVERSY AS RAISED FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE NOW STOOD COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORE-CITED DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT EVEN THE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. JOLLY POLYMERS DATED 21 ST OF FEBRUARY, 2013 (IN TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1622 OF 2012, AS UNDER:: BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FIN DING OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE SAID ACT). THE OBJ ECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT AS THE FACTORY LICENSE WAS GRANTED ON 3 RD MAY, 2005, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED MANUFACT URING ACTIVITY PRIOR TO CUT OFF DATE 31 ST MARCH, 2004. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL R ELIED UPON ITS DECISION IN THE MATTER OF ITO VAPI V/S. SAMARTH HEALTH CARE IN ITA NO.1006/AHD/2009 DATED 5 TH JUNE, 2012 AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE SAID ACT. THE TRIBUNAL CA ME TO FINDING OF FACT IN THE ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY G LASS. A.Y.2007-08 - 7 - ABOVE CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DOUBT ABOUT RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION, POWER CONSUMPTION, SALES AND EMPLOYMEN T OF WORKERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB OF THE SAID ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB OF THE SA ID ACT, WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE AN ARTICLE OR THING AND IF THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISIONS OF ANY OTH ER STATUTES THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE SAME TO THE AUTHORITIES IMPLEMEN TING THOSE ACTS/STATUTES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF DENIAL OF BENEF IT UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE SAID ACT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POIN T OUT WHY AND HOW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF SAMARTH H EALTH CARE (SUPRA) IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS. IN ANY EVENT, TH E CIT(A) WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DIRECTS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB BEFORE GRANTING RELIEF. 6. THE TWO HONBLE HIGH COURTS HAVE, THEREFORE, HEL D THAT WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MANUFACTURE O R PRODUCE AN ARTICLE OR THING BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED DATE. IT WAS HELD THAT IF THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF ANY OTHER STATUTE THEN THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE SAME TO THE AUTHORITIES IMPLEMENTING THOSE STATUTES BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF DENIAL OF BENEFIT U/S. 80IB OF THE IT ACT. ON THIS REASONING AS WELL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DEC ISIONS, WE HEREBY UPHOLD THE VIEW OF LEARNED CIT(A). EVEN IN THE CASE OF SAMARTH HEALTH CARE (TAX APPEAL NO.1125 OF 2010) ORDER DATED 11.01 .2013 THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS OPINED AS UNDER: 26. IN THE PRESENT GROUP OF CASES, HOWEVER, WE NEE D NOT DWELL ON THIS ISSUE AT ANY LENGTH. PRIMARILY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WH ILE HOLDING THAT ASSESSEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(4) OF THE ACT, WE ARE NOT READING INTO IT ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER ACT BUT ARE READING THE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE PROVISO T O SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT COMME NCEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY MUST BE LAWFUL AND ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIV ITY WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED BY LAW AND AGAINST PUBLIC PO LICY, WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY SAID PROVISION. 27. HOWEVER, IN CASES WHERE THE APPLICATION FOR LIC ENSE WAS ALREADY MADE BEFORE 31.3.2004, BUT OBTAINED SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH LAPSE MUST BE VIEWED AS ONE WHICH IS PURELY TE CHNICAL EVEN WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE THAT GRANT OF LICENSE SUBSEQUENTLY WOULD RELATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DATE OF APPLICATION. WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE TRIBUNALS VIEW TO THIS EXTE NT. ITA NO.3335/AHD/2010 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN VS. M/S. AUTO TUFF SAFETY G LASS. A.Y.2007-08 - 8 - 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AS ALSO FOL LOWING THE PRECEDENTS AS CITED SUPRA, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE; HENCE THE SAME ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/03/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD