IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3677/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) ITA NO.3678/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ACIT, CIR-6(3), R. NO.522, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 ....... APPELLANT VS HERITAGE MARBLES PVT. LTD., PRABAT COLONY, SERVICE ROAD, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI -400 055 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AACCH 1588 D APPELLANT BY: SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ALOK SAXENA O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLEN GING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) -12 MUMBAI DATED 12.2.2010. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND WH ICH IS COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF CONVERTIN G MARBLE STONE BLOCKS INTO POLISHED SLABS MOUNTS TO MANUFACT URE ITA NO.3677/MUM/2010 ITA NO.3678/MUM/2010 HERITAGE MARBLES PVT. LTD. 2 AND THEREBY THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THIS ACTIVITY I S ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASS ESSEE IS IN THE MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF THE MARBLE. THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANYS ACTIVITY OF CONVERTING MARBL E STONE BLOCKS INTO SLABS AND TILES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR P RODUCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT IN BOTH THE ASSES SMENT YEARS OF RS 12,42,654/- IN A.Y. 2002-03 AND RS 29,03,274/- IN T HE A.Y. 2007-08. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E U/S.80IB IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 BUT THE SAME WAS ALSO DISCARDED. WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS GONE TO THE E XTENT DECLINED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE ARIHANT TILES AND MARBLES P. LTD. 295 ITR 148 (RAJ) AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05. THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. NOW WE FIND THAT THI S ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HARIHANT TILES AND MAR BLES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 320 ITR 79. THE LD. D.R. FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT NOW THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NO T FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACC ORDINGLY, RESPECTIVE COMMON GROUND IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.3677/MUM/2010 ITA NO.3678/MUM/2010 HERITAGE MARBLES PVT. LTD. 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 2 TH MAY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( B. RAMAKOTIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 12 TH MAY 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPLICANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)12, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT CITY -6, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. H BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA NO.3677/MUM/2010 ITA NO.3678/MUM/2010 HERITAGE MARBLES PVT. LTD. 4 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 12.05.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.05.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER