Sh. Bansi Lal Gupta, Jammu V. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

ITA 363/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 36320914 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI GUPTA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Rule of consistency; Earning of tax free income; Difference of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (JAMMU CAMP; JAMMU ) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S.KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.363 (ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 SH. BANSI LAL GUPTA 90-A, GOLE MARKET, GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMU PAN:AHOPG9220F VS. THE JCIT, RANGE-1, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO.405(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU. VS. SH. BANSI LAL GUPTA 90-A, GOLE MARKET, GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMU PAN:AHOPG9220F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. RAVI GUPTA (CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. K.V.K. SINGH (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 4.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 23.12.2015 ORDER PER T.S.KAPOOR (A.M): THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 29.05.2015. 2. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE. (I) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS), JAMMU DENYING PART DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AMO UNTING TO RS.4106764/- AND CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.54,733/- MADE BY THE AO I N COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. (II) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY DENYING PART DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLANT U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.41,06,764/ - BY HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM ADVERTISEMENT AND OTHER INCOME IS NOT DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS OF PRINTING AND PUBLICATION OF NEWS PAPERS, IGNORING T HE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DULY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ON THIS ACCOUNT U/S 80IB IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND ALSO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 U/S 143(3) BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. (III) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), HAS AGAIN, ERRED IN LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE BY MAKING A DEPARTURE FROM TH E VIEW TAKEN BY HIS PREDECESSOR AS WELL AS THIS HONBLE BENCH IN THE CA SE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 IN THE APPEALS NO.275/11-12 AND 250(ASR)/20 12 RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN LD. CIT(A) AND THIS HONBLE BENCH BOTH HAVE DECLARE D THE INCOME FROM ADVERTISEMENT AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PUBLISHING BUS INESS AND HELD SUCH INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. (IV) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS NO T ONLY ERRED IN LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY DENYING PART DEDUCTION U/S 80IB, AT THE SAME TIME, THE ALLEGED INADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION OF RS.4106764 U/ S 80IB IS COMPUTED ARBITRARILY, WITHOUT APPLYING ANY LAWFUL BASIS, IS TOTALLY INCORRECT, DEVOID OF ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND NEED TO BE SET ASIDE. (V) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.54,733/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITOR M/S PAPER UDYOG, WHEREAS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS BROUGHT ON REC ORD THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE SAID OUTSTANDING DID EXIST THOUGH UNDER DIFFERENT ACCOUNT HEADS. WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY TH E REVENUE. 3. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 (I) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON ADVERTISEMENT AND OTHER INCOME. (II) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/ 80IB ON ADVERTISEMENT AND OTHER INCOME AS THE ASSES SEE DID NOT ESTABLISH A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BUT UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL EX PANSION OF THE BUSINESS BY SETTING UP A PRINTING PRESS. (III) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON ADVERTISEMENT AND OTHER INCOME AS THE INCOM E FROM ADVERTISEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM THE PRINTING PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS INCOME IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDE RTAKING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BESIDES DECLARATION OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ALSO DECLARED BUSINESS INCOME AS PROPRIETOR OF M/S EARLY TIMES PRINTING PRESS. THE INCOME DECLARED FROM THE EARLY TIMES PRINTING PRESS WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.73,92,176/- THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THIS INCOME AS EXEMPT INCOME U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A NOTE REGARDING JUSTIFICATION FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRITTEN NOTE EXPLAINING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY AND HE REFERRED TO THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN EARLIER YEAR WHERE IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. THEREFORE, RELYI NG UPON THE EARLIER ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELI GIBLE FOR CLAIM U/S 80IB. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE TOTAL I NCOME IN THE UNIT OF EARLY TIME PRINTING PRESS AND HAD INCLUDED INCOME FROM ADVERT ISEMENT IN HIS NEWS PAPER AMOUNTING TO RS.1,21,32,557/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER HELD THAT THE INCOME 4. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 FROM ADVERTISEMENT WAS NOT INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINES S OF PRINTING NEWS PAPER AND HE HELD THAT ADVERTISEMENT INCOME WAS NOT DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. FURTHER HE HELD THAT SINCE HE HAD ALREADY DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB TO THE EXEMPT OF RS.7 3,92,176/- THEREFORE, THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE WILL REMAIN LIMITED TO RS.73,93,176/-. THE ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB FROM THE SAME BUSINESS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HELD THAT A MISTAKE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE PERPETUATED AND THEREFORE, RELYING UP ON THE CASE LAWS OF ITO VS. GOVERDHAN DASS 20 ITD 681 HELD THAT AN ERRONEOUS VI EW IN LAW COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE PERPETUATED ON THE GROUND OF CONSISTENCY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.54,733/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDIT OR AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF PAPER UDYOG DELHI AS ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT VIDE REPLY DATED 24.02.2014, THE SAID COMPANY HAD CATEGO RICALLY DENIED OF HAVING MADE ANY SALES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION HOLDING THE CREDITOR AS A BOGUS CREDITOR. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BE FORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB, HOWEVER, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TAKING ADVERTISEMENT INCOME AS PART OF ELIGIBLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB. 5. REGARDING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CRED ITOR, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 6. AGGRIEVED BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 7. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO AN ORDER OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, IN ITA 250 (ASR)/2011 &12 FOR AS ST. YEAR 2009-10 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK 72 -78 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE TRIBNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 HAD ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO ASSESS EE BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AND WAS ALSO ELIGIB LE FOR ADVERTISEMENT INCOME TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS COVERED BY SECTION 80IB. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN DENYING THE INCOME FROM ADVERTISEMENT AS PART OF EXEMPT PROFITS U/S 80IB WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CRE DITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.54,733/-, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEAR NED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME OF PAPER UDYOG WAS MENTIONED IN ADVERTENTLY WHERE A S THE CREDIT AMOUNT WAS RELATED TO M/S. TRIVENI FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED AND KHANNA PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED. 9. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT UPHELD BY HIM. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSORS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER 2009-10. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT (A) IN ITA NO.275(ASR)/2011-12 HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE INCLUDING THAT FOR INCOME FRO M ADVERTISEMENT IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE THE COPY OF SUCH ORDER DATED 20.3.2012 IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 79-91 6. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 ON APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL VID E ITS ORDER DATED 19 TH MARCH, 2013 HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE BY HOLDING AS U NDER: (7) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RE LEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US ALONG WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. (8) THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IS VERY MUCH RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS BENCH. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PARA 4 OF PAGE 10 TO 4.6 OF PAGE 12 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: 4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CAS E, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REASONING ADVANCED BY THE A.O., THE WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS AND THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE COUNSEL AND THE DOCUMENTS IN THE PAPER BOOK. (4.1) THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT EARLIER TO AND UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE WAS PUBLISHING THE NEWSPAPER EARLY TIMES' AS AN EDITOR AND THE PRINTING WAS GOT DONE FROM OUTSIDE. .THE MACHINERY WAS PURCHASED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 ALSO THE BUILDING WAS ADDED (AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07). DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED ON THESE ADDED ASSETS. ASSETS OTHER THAN MACHINERY AS WELL AS BUILDING (I .E. RS. 36,35,107- AND RS.8,00,000/-) STOOD AT RS. 85,4497- ONLY AND COMPRISED OF COLOUR T. V. COMPUTER, COOLER, EPBX, FURNITURE, GENERATOR, MOTOR PUMP, PAGER, FAN AND ON E SCOOTER. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE NO CLAIM OF 80IB OF THE I. T ACT. WAS MADE IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 BUT WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEN THE DIC, JAMMU ISSUED THE ASSESSEE REGISTRATION FOR THE UNIT FOR MANUFACTURE, PROVISIO NALLY ON 05.04.2005 AND PERMANENTLY ON 07.04.2006 VIDE REGISTRATION NO. 09613/AMTSBI. I T IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO INDUSTRIAL UNIT FUNCTIONING BEFORE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THOUGH MACHINERY AND BUILDING WAS ADDED AND NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED. THE A. O. IS SWAYED BY THE FACT THAT THE BALANCES IS FIXED ASSETS SHOWN IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH LED HIM TO OPINE T HAT THE SAME BUSINESS WAS EXPANDED AND THE COMING INTO EXISTENCE THE NEW AND ONLY UNIT WHICH WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U7S 80IB OF THE I. T. ACT REMAINED IGNORED: 4.2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DETAILED SUBMISSION MADE B EFORE THE NEW UNIT WAS NOT FORMED BY ANY SPLITTING OR RECOGNITION OF ANY EXISTING UNIT AS NO SUCH UNIT WAS THERE PRIOR TO 2006-07. IN VIEW OF 7. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 THIS THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS ON STRONGER FOOTING TH AN IN ASSESSES IN CASES OF M/S. TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPN. LTD. 107- ITR-195(SUPREME COURT) M/S QUALITY STEEL TUBES (P) LTD., 280-ITR- 254 (ALL.) AND M/S MAHAN FOODS LTD.216 CTR(DEL.) 148 AS CITED BY ASSESSEE. EVEN IF WE APPLY THE RATIO OF M/S MAHAN FOODS(SUPRA) IN CASE OF ASSESSEE, AS MENT IONED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER CONSIDERING THAT TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS WAS RS., 85,449/- AND THE NEW UNIT (I.E. BUILDING AND MACHINERY) WERE ADDED TO THE TUNE OF RS. DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND ALSO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELIANCE OF A.O. ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE I. T.A. T., AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF M/S GOVERDHAN PASS & SONS, IS MISPLACED AS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THOUGH PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT APPLY TO THE I NCOME TAX LAWS BUT UNLESS THERE IS A MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS OR LEGAL POSITION AN ISSUE DULY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED ALREADY IS NOT TO BE DISTURBED ON THE GROUND OF DIFFERENCE IN OPINION. I N THIS REGARD, THE RELIANCE OJ ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CASE OF M/S. NEO POLY PACK (P) LTD. 245-ITR- 492 IS WELL PLACED WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER. NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DECLINING TO MAKE A REFERENCE ON THE PROPOSED QUESTION. IT IS TRUE THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER, THE DOCTRINE OF RES- JUDI CATA DOES NOT STRICTLY APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, BUT WHERE AN ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED CONSISTENTLY IN A NUMBER OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR S IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, THE SAME VIEW SHOULD CONTI NUE TO PREVAIL IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, UNLESS HERE IS CHANGE IN THE FACTS. IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT EVEN A SINGLE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION WHICH COULD HAVE PROMPT ED THE A.O. TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, IN WHI CH THE SAME INCOME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE PETITIO N IS ACCORDINGLY DISM ISSED. 4.4 NEEDLESS TO REITERATE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE ON MERITS AND NOT ONLY BASED ON RIDES OF CONSISTENCY. 4.5 THE RELIANCE OF THE A.O. ON TWO ORDERS PASSED U /S 263 OF I. T. ACT BY THE CIT, JAMMU, IS ALSO MISPLACED. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THESE D ECISIONS WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO ASSESSEE DESPITE REQUESTING THE FACTS REMAINS THAT ORDERS U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT ARE CASE SPECIFIC. MOREOVER, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT HE A.O. WHILE PASSING ORDER UNDER SECT ION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF I. T. ACT 8. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I. T. ACT, CANN OT BE CITED AS PRECEDENCE AS SUCH WITHOUT APPLYING THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. 4.6 THE ONLY ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE A.O. REMAINS TO BE EXAMINED AND THAT RELATES TO INCOME FROM ADVERTISING. PUBLISHING AND PRINTING OF PUBLIC NOTICES AND ADVERTISEMENTS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES. THE CO NTENTION PUT BY ASSESSEE THAT IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF BOOKING THE ADVERTISEMENT BUT RECEIVES THE SAME FOR PROCESSING, PREPARING AND PRINTING. AT ONE SIDE THE ASSESSEE GETS ITS RECEIPT S IN FORM OF SALE OF NEWSPAPERS AND ADVERTISING, IT PAYS VARIOUS AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS. IT IS THE INCOME ADVERTISING WHICH KEEPS THE SALE PRICE OF A NEWSPAPER OR A MAGAZINE VIABLE, WITHOUT WHICH SUCH BUSINESS MAY FIND IT NEAR TO IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMERCIALLY SURVIVE. IN THE CASE OF M/S INVEST WELL PUBLISHERS (P) LTD. 96 TTJ (MUM) 994 THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., MUMBAI AS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD AS UNDER BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S INVEST WELL PUBLISHERS (P) LTD., 96 TTJ (MUM) 994, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PUBLISHING OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE MAGAZINES HAS A DIRECT AND INTIMATE CONNECTION WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IF THE RELEVANT MAGAZINES ARE NOT PUBL ISHED, THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO INCOME FROM ADVERTISEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE COST OF PRODUC TION OF NEWSPAPER MAY AMOUNT TO RS. 6-7, WHEREAS IT IS SOLD FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 ONLY . THE MAIN RECEIPTS WOULD BE FROM PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS. IN OUR VIEW, THE INC OME FROM PUBLISHING OF ADVERTISEMENTS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PUBLISHING 80IB IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT ADVERTISING I NCOME IS AN INSEPARABLE PART OF PRINTING AND PUBLISHING BUSINESS WHICH IN EFFECT ULTIMATELY SUBSIDISES THE SALE PRICE AND MAKE THE BUSINESS RUN. THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE ENTITLED F OR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF IT. ACT, GROUND NO. 1 STANDS DISPOSED OF. 9. IN VIEW THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIG HTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE NEW UNIT KEEPING IN VI EW THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 BECAUSE IN THESE YEARS SIMI LAR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS TO IN COME FROM ADVERTISING, PUBLISHING AND PRINTING OF PUBLIC NOTICES AND ADVERTISEMENT WHICH IS AN INT EGRAL PART OF BUSINESS OF NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINE. LEAREND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIG HTLY DECLARED THIS INCOME AS AN INTEGRAL PART 9. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 OF PUBLISHING BUSINESS AND HELD SUCH INCOME ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T., MUMBAI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF M/S INVEST WELL PUBLISHERS (P) LTD. 96TTJ (MUM). 994. (10) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME BY DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE . (11) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRE SENT YEAR REMAINS SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM U/S 80IB AND FURTHER THE INCOME FROM ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS PAPER IS CONSID ERED TO BE INCOME DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 IN ITA NO. 363 ARE ALLOWED. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.5, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD DECLARED SUNDRY CREDITORS IN THE NAME OF M/S PAPER UDYOG, DELHI. TH E LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT SUPPLIES RECEIVED FROM DELHI WERE CREDITED IN THE NAME OF M/S PAPER UDYOG EVEN IF THE SUPPLIES WERE RECEIVED FROM OTHER DEALERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT CREDITOR DECLARED UNDER PAPER UDYOG IN FACT RELATED TO M/S TRIVENI FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED AND KHANNA PAPERS MILLS PRIVATE LI MITED. 12. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES CAN BE RE- EXAMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSE3E AND LEARNED DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE SAID PROPOSAL. T HEREFORE, WE REMIT GROUND NO.5 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL TO ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ON THE BASIS OF EXAMINATION 10. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WILL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER T HE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE BOGUS OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXAMINE TH E CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED SUNDRY CREDITORS BELONGING TO M/ S TRIVENI FOREST PRODUCTS AND KHANNA PAPER MILLS INSTEAD OF PAPER UDYOG, DELH I. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO.5 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED TH E DEDUCTION TO ASSESSEE U/S 80IB ON ADVERTISEMENT AND OTHER INCOME, WHEREAS FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT HE HAD IN FACT NOT ALL OWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB FOR INCOME FROM ADVERTISEMENT AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY REVENUE ARE MISCONCEIVED AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHEREAS TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 RD DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D.JAIN) (T.S.KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23.12.2015 PK/PS 11. ITA NOS. 363 & 405(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 1-12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.