DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI V. PRINCE PLASTIC INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3533/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7583 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRUGAKSHI K JOSHI
• Section: 80IB; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, AM AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO ,JM I.T.A. NO. 3533/MUM/09 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-8(2), ROOM NO. 216-A, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. VS. M/S. PRINCE PLASTICS INTERNATIONAL P. LTD., PRINCE HOUSE, 51/3, MAROL CO-OP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, M.V.ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 053, PAN: AACP 3346H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :: SHRI S.M. KESHKAMAT RESPONDENT BY :: SHRI MRUGAKSHI K. JOSHI O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD (AM): IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUND: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB TO THE ASS ESSEE SINCE THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE TWELFTH YEAR SINCE THE INCEPTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WAS DISALLO WED BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS THE TWELFTH YEAR OF ITS OPERATION. H OWEVER, IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT DEDUCTION WAS RELATABLE TO VARIOUS UNITS SEPARATELY AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT UNIT NOS. I, II, III, IV AND V ARE SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL U NDERTAKINGS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER VID E PARAS 1.4 AND 1.5. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y AND WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A ND IN THIS REGARD THE ORDER PLACED BEFORE US IN ITA NO. 2160/M/2008 DATED 28 TH MAY, 2009 SHOWS THAT EVEN IN EARLIER YEAR I.E. A.Y . 2003-04 THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN THAT UNIT NOS. I, I I, III, IV AND V WERE SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL 2 UNDERTAKINGS AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IA/IB. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) WE DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE RE VENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 201 0. SD. SD. (V. DURGA RAO) (T.R. SOOD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR MUMBAI, DATED THE 23RD FEBRUARY, 2010. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DCIT-8(2), MUMBAI 3. THE CIT-VIII, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-VIII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, C BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T.MUMBAI