M/s. Suntec Controls, Jammu V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Jammu

ITA 38/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5710 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR. BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO.38(ASR)/2011. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S.SUNTEC CONTROLS, THE DY. C.I.T., BARI BRAHMANA, CIRCLE I,, JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.N. ARORA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI TARSEM LAL, D.R. ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 16-11-2010, RELATING TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUND NOS.1,2, 6 AND 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AN D HENCE NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN. 3. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPH OLDING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.80,59,245/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PART D EDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 ON EXCISE DUTY REFUND RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLD ING THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW REFU ND OF EXCISE 2 DUTY AMOUNTING TO RS.80,59,245/- IS NOT A CAPITAL R ECEIPT NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF REMOTE CONTROL, TEMPERATURE C ONTROLLER, PCB ASSEMBLY ETC. AT ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT LOCATED AT LAN E NO.17, PHASE II, SIDCO, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, BARI BRAHMANA, JAMMU. DURING TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED REFUND O F EXCISE DUTY AMOUNTING TO RS.80,59,245/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80-IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). HOWEVER, THE A .O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAXED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS, KAHUA DATED 26-11-2009 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT M/S. SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS, KATHUA CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT WAS AS UNDER:- WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE REFUND AND INTERES T SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANTS-ASSESSES, IN PURSUANCE OF THE IN CENTIVES ANNOUNCED AND SANCTIONED VIDE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY O F COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMO TION)S OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.1(13)2000-NER DATED JUNE 4, 2002 AND CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATION NOS.56 AND 57, DATED NOVEMBER 1 4,2002 AND OTHER NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED ON THE SUBJECT, PERTAINI NG TO THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY INTRODUCED IN THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR, IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND, THUS, NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT, OR REVENUE RECEIPT, AS OPINED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT? 3 7. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 31-1- 2011 IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS, KATHUA, REPORTED IN (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) DECIDED THE ISSUE, OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE INCENTIVES PROV IDED TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, IN TERMS OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL PO LICY, FOR ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE, FO R CREATION OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT, WHICH W OULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERMANENT SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT T O THE UNEMPLOYED IN THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, WERE IN FACT, IN THE NATURE OF CREATION OF NEW ASSETS OF INDUSTRI AL ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT, HAVING THE POTENTIAL OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATION TO ACHIEVE A SOCIAL OBJECT. SUCH INCENT IVES, DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE PUBLIC PURPOSE, CANNOT, BY ANY STRETCH O F REASONING, BE CONSTRUED AS PRODUCTION OR OPERATIONAL INCENTIVE S FOR THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSEES ALONE. THUS, LOOKING TO THE PURPOSE, OF ERADICATION OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE BY ACCELERATIO N OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVING BACKWARDNESS OF THE AREA THAT LAGGED BEHIND IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CERTAINLY A PURPOSE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE INCENTIVES PR OVIDED BY THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM AND STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS ISSUE D IN THIS PRODUCTION AND TRADE INCENTIVES, AS HELD BY THE TRI BUNAL. MAKING OF ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN THE SCHEME THAT INCENTIVES WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, ENTITLED THERETO, FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, AND THAT THESE WERE NOT REQU IRED FOR CREATION OF NEW ASSETS CANNOT BE VIEWED IN ISOLATIO N, TO TREAT THE INCENTIVES AS PRODUCTION INCENTIVES, AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, FOR THE MEASURE SO TAKEN, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE MADE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE BONA FIDE INDUSTRIAL UNITS SO THAT LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST OF DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE, AS INTENDED, IN TERMS OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, WAS ACHIEVED. THE OTHER FACTORS, WHICH HAD WEIGHED WITH THE TRIBU NAL IN DETERMINING THE INCENTIVES AS PRODUCTION INCENTI VES MAY NOT 4 BE DECISIVE TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE INCEN TIVE SUBSIDIES, WHEN IT IS FOUND, AS DEMONSTRATE IN THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, AMENDMENT INTRODUCED THERETO AND THE ST ATUTORY NOTIFICATION TOO THAT THE INCENTIVES WERE PROVIDED WITH THE OBJECT OF CREATING AVENUES FOR PERPETUAL EMPLOYMENT , TO ERADICATE THE SOCIAL PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE BY ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. FOR ALL WHAT HA BEEN SAID ABOVE, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FIRST ISSUE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY RE FUND, INTEREST SUBSIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY WERE PRODUCTION INCEN TIVES, HENCE REVENUE RECEIPT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, BEING A GAINST THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SAHNEY STEEL CASE [1997] 228 ITR 253 AND PONNI SUGARS CASE [2008] 306 ITR 391. THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INCENTIVES WER E REVENUE RECEIPT IS, ACCORDINGLY, SET-ASIDE HOLDING THE INCENTIVES TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDING ON THE FIRST ISSUE, TH ERE IS NO NEED TO OPINE ON THE SECOND ISSUE, WHICH WAS RAISED IN THE ALTERNATIVE. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONB LE J & K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY REFUND AMOUNTING TO RS.80,59,245/- RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THUS NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 STAND ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERR ED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND OF RS.80,59,245/- RE CEIVED BY THE 5 ASSESSEE WAS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERT AKING AND THUS WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 9.1 SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. HENCE, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TER MS, AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. VICE PRESIDENT. DATED: 23 RD JUNE, 2011. KC/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: M/S.SUNTEC CONTROLS, JAMMU. (2) THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAMMU. (3) THE CIT, JAMMU. (4) THE CIT(A), JAMMU (5) THE SR.D.R., ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR.