DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI V. PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3581/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7502 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRUGAKSHI K JOSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R V EASWAR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI P M JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A NO: 3581/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2) APPELLANT MUMBAI VS M/S PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI RESPONDE NT (PAN: AAACP6281H) APPELLANT BY: MR NAVEEN GUPTA RESPONDENT BY: MS MRUGAKSHI K JOSHI O R D E R R V EASWAR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT: THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS AP PEAL IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING UNITS I AND II AS SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0-IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS FURTHER STATED IN THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT BOTH THE UNITS WERE PART OF A SINGL E UNIT WHICH WAS EXPANDED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 3-04 TO 2005-06 AND COPIES OF THESE ORDERS WERE ALSO FILED. THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS ALSO GIVEN COPIES OF THE AFORESA ID ORDERS FOR HIS PERUSAL AND SUBMISSION. ON GOING THROUGH THE AFORE SAID ORDERS, WE FIND THAT THE MAIN ORDER IS THE ONE PASSED ON 25 TH MARCH 2009 IN ITA 2 NOS: 3351 AND 3411/MUM/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IN THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT THE FACTS W ERE IDENTICAL WITH THE CASE OF ITS SISTER CONCERN BY NAME M/S PRINCE P LASTICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, IN WHICH CASE THE TRIBUNAL BY ORDE R DATED 30 TH MARCH 2006 IN IT(SS)A NO: 222/MUM/2004 HAD HELD WHILE DEA LING WITH A SIMILAR CONTROVERSY THAT ALL THE UNITS WERE NEWLY E STABLISHED, INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES CASE (SUPRA) FOUND THE CONT ENTION TO BE CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT UN ITS I AND II WERE ALSO TO BE SIMILARLY TREATED AS NEWLY ESTABLISHED, INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE THAT EVEN T HE CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESS EES CASE AND THE FACTS OF THE SISTER CONCERN WERE IDENTICAL AND HAS FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE SISTER CONCERN, NAMELY M/S PRINCE PLASTICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED. 3. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ITA NO: 5228/MUM/2007, O RDER DATED 9 TH JULY 2009. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE SA ME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 28 TH MAY 2009 IN ITA NO: 2185/MUM/2008. IN THIS ORDER THE FACTS OF THE ASSE SSEES CASE HAVE BEEN NARRATED IN SOME DETAIL IN PARAGRAPH 3. 4. A PERUSAL OF ALL THE THREE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L SHOWS THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS 3 OF ITS SISTER CONCERN BY NAME M/S PRINCE PLASTICS I NTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, IN WHOSE CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE LEADING ORDER, WHICH ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2005-06. THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ALSO BEING THE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE CONFIRM THE DE CISION OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MARCH 2010. (P M JAGTAP) (R V EASWAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SENIOR VICE PRESI DENT MUMBAI, DATED MARCH 2010 SALDANHA COPY TO: 1. M/S PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. PRINCE ARCADE, C-10, CENTRAL ROAD MAROL MIDC, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 093 2. DCIT 8(2) 3. CIT-VIII 4. CIT(A)-VIII 5. DR C BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 08.03.10 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08.03.10 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER VP 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER