The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji., Panaji V. M/s Lift Controls (P) Ltd., Ponda

ITA 376/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3098 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT GADEKAR LD
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 376 /PNJ/2015 : (ASST. Y R : 2012 - 1 3 ) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), PANAJI, GOA. ( APPELLANT) VS. M/S. LIFT CONTROLS (P) LTD SURVEY NO. 39/1, MURDI KHANDEPAR, PONDA - GOA. PAN : AAACL6371Q. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRA SHANT GADEKAR, LD. DR. REVENUE BY : SHRI VARDHAMAN L. JAIN , C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 12 / 0 1 /201 6 DATE OF ORDER : 1 2 / 0 1 /201 6 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANAJI - 1 IN APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 349/CIT(A) - 1/PNJ/14 - 15 DATED 14.07.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI VARDHAMAN L. JAIN, C.A . REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 2 ITA NO. 376 /PNJ/2015 (ASST. YR : 201 2 - 1 3 ) 80IB OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN REPLY THE LD. AR S UBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO S .147 TO 152/PNJ/2014 DATED 04.09.2014 WHEREIN IN PARA N O. 4.9 AT PAGE 21 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS : - 4.9 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE NOTED THAT ONCE THE WIRE IS CUT AND STRIPPED AFTER GOING THROUGH DIFFERENT PROCESS AND TESTING AN ENTIRELY NEW PRODUCT COMES WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT UTILITY WHICH IS BEING USED IN ELEC TRONIC IN DUSTRY FOR ELEVATORS. THIS WIRE HARNESS HAS INDEPENDENT IDENTITY AND CAN BE SOLD IN THE MARKET. THIS PRODUCT NO MORE REMAINS THE ORDINARY WIRE. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT UNIT - II IS ENGAGED IN MANUFA CTURING OF A SEPARATE PRODUCT. WE DO NOT A GREE WITH THE LD. DR THAT IF TWO UNITS ARE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SAME ROOF EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE HAVING SEPARATE IDENTITY THEY CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. BOTH THE UNITS ARE HAVING INDEPENDENT IDENTITY, MANUFACTURING DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, HAVING DIFFERENT MACHINERY. THEY ARE NOT INTER - DEPENDENT FOR MANUFACTURING THEIR PRODUCT, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE UNITS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIT BY SPLITTIN G UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE NEW UNIT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FORMED BY TRANSFERRING TO THE NEW BUSINESS MACHINERY AND PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. IN RESPECT OF THE CONDITION ABOUT THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE EMPLO YEES, WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR - CUT FINDING THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN 10 EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN UNIT - II IN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACT AND CASUAL LABOUR. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). CIT(A) HA S GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS AND BILLS. THE LD. DR EVEN THOUGH VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB, COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH MAY COMPEL US TO REVERS E THE FINDING GIVEN BY CIT(A). WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL DID NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 ITA NO. 376 /PNJ/2015 (ASST. YR : 201 2 - 1 3 ) 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISS ED. 8 . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 . 0 1 .201 6 . S D / - ( NARENDRA S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI - GOA DATED : 12 / 0 1 /201 6 *A* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI