DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Faith Biotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4120/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73970 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S P A GARWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10) DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1), VS. FAITH BIOTECH PVT. LTD. C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE I-49, LAJPAT NAGAR-1, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 024. AAACF7964M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :SHRI RAJEEV SAXENA, A DVOCATE & SHRI S.P. AGARW AL,. CA REVENUE BY :MS. NIDHI SRIVASTVA, S R. DR ORDER PER I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: IN ALL THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVE NUE A COMMON ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 4290162/- IN ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07, RS. 85,69,594/- IN ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 AND RS. 2,46,13,965/- IN ASSTT . YEAR 2009-10 U/S 80IC OF THE IT ACT 1961. 2. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 2 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY CLAIMS TO HAVE MANUFACTURES PRODUCTS CALLED STERI-AIR AIR PURIFIE R SYSTEMS BY PROCURING VARIOUS PARTS / COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM FROM DIFFE RENT VENDORS AND ASSEMBLING THEM AT ITS UNIT. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT EL ECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS ARE RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF CARDS WITH S UITABLE CONNECTORS AND ALL THE REQUIRED CARDS ARE CONNECTED USING CONN ECTORS. FOR THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS TOOLS AND EQUIPMENTS WERE PUR CHASED AND USED. THE AIR PURIFIER MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE H EALTH CARE PRODUCTS. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 1.4.2005 TO 31.3.2006 RELE VANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE SET UP A NEW I NDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING / MANUFACTURING UNIT IN SALEMPUR RAJPUT AN, ROORKEE, DISTRR. HARIDWAR, UTTRANCHAL AND BEGAN TO MANUFACTURE / PRO DUCE AIR PURIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT BEEN ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE I.T. ACT 1961. DURING THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE DECLARED PROFIT EARNED AT RS. 4290162/- FROM ITS ROORKEE DIV ISION (MANUFACTURING) AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF T HE ACT 1961 AT 100% OF SUCH PROFIT I.E. RS. 4290162/-. THE TOTAL INCOME IN ITS RETURN DECLARED WAS RS. 26,25,230/- AFTER CLAIMING THE ABO VE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE AO DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF RS. 42,90,162/- STATING THAT NO MANUFACTURI NG EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED OR MACHINERIES AVAILABLE WHILE SIMULT ANEOUSLY ALLOWING ALL ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 3 EXPENSES ALSO DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY AND TOOLS F OR ROORKEE DIVISION. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESEE WENT IN FIRST APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION. AGAINST THIS ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEALS. 4. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS IN THE APPEAL FOR THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE AMOUNT CLAIMED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 5. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND THE LD. SR. DR HAS BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHE HAS ALSO REFE RRED DIFFERENT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK TO NURTURE HER CONTENTION THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ONLY ASSEMBLING DIFFERENT COMPONENTS IN ITS UNIT WHICH C AN NOT BE TERMED AS MANUFACTURING TO EXTEND INCENTIVES PROVIDED U/S 80I C OF THE ACT TO IT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO. 3 THAT IN BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT THERE ARE NOT MACHINERY FOR MANUFACTURING EXPENSES. THE PURCH ASES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ARE BASICALLY PURCHASES FOR TRADE AND NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. WHE N THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BILLS OF PURCHASE OF MACHINERY, IT WAS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE THAT THE PURCHASE OF TOOLS HAS BEEN MADE T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 99,750/- ONLY, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE T HE BILLS FOR SAID TOOLS FOR THE DETAILS OF SUCH TOOLS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRO DUCED PHOTO COPY OF ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 4 SOME ESTIMATES CLAIMED TO BE THE PURCHASE BILLS OF THE TOOLS WITHOUT MENTIONING NAME OF SUPPLIER OR THEIR ADDRESSES. THU S IN ABSENCE OF ADDRESS IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR AO TO ASCERTAIN THE CLAIM THAT TOOLS WERE PURCHASED FROM THEM. THUS THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED ON A RRIVING THE CONCLUSION THAT NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE CA RRIED OUT NOR ANY MACHINERY WHATSOEVER WAS PURCHASED OR AVAILABLE WIT H THE ASSESSEE. SHE POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED ABOUT SOME PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTIN G THE VARIOUS PROCESSES INVOLVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MANUFACTURING OF AIR PURIFIER WHICH WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. SHE ALSO RE FERRED PAGE NO. 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT ONLY TE STING EQUIPMENTS HAVE BEEN USED. SHE ALSO REFERRED PAGE NO. 68 TO 75 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDER ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF AIR PURIFIER. SHE REFERRED FURTHER THE CONTENTS OF PAGE NOS. 114 AND 175 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE COPIES OF CASH VOUCHERS AND BILL OF PURCHASING OF WIRE TO SUPPORT HER SUBMI SSION THAT NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE THERE AT THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT ALMOST SIMILAR ARE TH E FACTS IN THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED. ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 5 6. LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DENI ED THIS MATERIAL FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVOLVED IN ASSEMBLING DIFFER ENT COMPONENTS TO MAKE THE PRODUCT AIR PURIFIER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE PAPER BOOK WERE FI LED BEFORE THE AO TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS IN VOLVED IN MANUFACTURING. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS THAT ASSESS EE IS VERY WELL INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF THE CLAIMED PRODUCTS, HE REFERRED CONTENTS OF PARA NO. 3 PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND P AGE 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HE ALSO REFERRED PAGE NOS. 57, 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 TO NARRATE THE ACTUAL FUNCTION INVOLVED BY THE ASSESSE E IN MANUFACTURING. HE ALSO REFERRED PAGE NOS. 59, 78, 79, 81, 82, 104 AND 105 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR CONTENDED FURTHER THAT EXPENSES CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE INCURRED ON THE MANUFACTURING OF THE GOODS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT TOOLS ARE MULTI METERS ETC. WHICH WERE PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING AND REFERRED PAGE NO. 170 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED PAGE NOS. 1 93, 207 TO 213 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND PAGE NOS. 49, 50 AND PAGE NO. 76 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008- 09. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE AO HAS DOUBTED ABOUT THE ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 6 PURCHASE OF TOOLS AND MACHINERY ETC. BUT HAS ACCEPT ED THE FACT OF PURCHASE OF SUCH MACHINERY AND TOOLS WHILE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,791 ON THE GROSS BLOCK ASSETS AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 1,26,720/- AT ROORKEE UNIT. HE ALSO REFERRED CONTENTS OF WRITT EN SYNOPSIS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND CITED THE FOLLOWING DECISIO NS AS WELL : 1. RAMIT KUMAR SHARMA (2009) 309 ITR 344 ( AAR) 2. CIT VS. N.C. BUDHIRAJA & CO. (1993) 20 4 ITR 412 (SC) 3. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2001) 25 1 ITR 323 (SC) 4. CIT VS. TATA LOCOMOTIVE 68 ITR 325 (BO M) 7. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE CITED DECISIO NS SPECIALLY THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT WE FIND THAT THE ESTABLISHED RATIO THEREIN ON THE I SSUE IS THAT EVEN ASSEMBLING OF VARIOUS PARTS AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IF SUCH PROCESSES RESULTS I N FORMATION OF A COMMERCIALLY NEW AND DISTINCT PRODUCTS FROM THE IN PUTS USED IN ITS MANUFACTURE /PRODUCTION. TAKING STRENGTH FROM THES E DECISIONS ON THE RATIO THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FOLLOWING FINDING IN PARA 5 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, RE PRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 5. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC ON TWO ACC OUNTS :- (A) ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 7 THAT THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING OF AIR PURIFIER I S NOT MERE ASSEMBLING OF PARTS BUT INVOLVED VARIOUS PROCESSES AND OPERATIONS ; AND (B) THAT, AT ANY RATE, ASSEMBLING OF VARIOUS COMPONENTS AMOUNTED TO MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION FOR T HE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT. AS REGARDS THE FIRST PART OF ITS SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE MANUFACTURING OF AIR PURIFIER RE QUIRED VARIOUS PROCESSES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SYSMETIC AN D VARIOUS OTHER TESTING AND PROCEDURES BEFORE THE FINAL PRODUCT IS READY. THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD ALSO FURNISHED A FLOW CHAR T DEPICTING VARIOUS PROCESSES AND SUBMITTED COMPILATION OF PHOT OGRAPHS DEPICTING THE VARIOUS PROCESSES INVOLVED. THE APPEL LANT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME CORUT AND OTHER HIGH COSURTS TO CONTEND THAT THE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER PROCESSES AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE IS WHETHER AFTER P UTTING THE RAW MATERIAL THROUGH SUCH PROCESSES, WHETHER A NEW AND DISTINCT PRODUCT IS GENERATED OR NOT. IF THE ANSWER TO THE A FORESAID IS IN AFFIRMATIVE, THEN SAID PROCESSES, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WOULD AMOUNT OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION. THE APPELLANT SPECIFICAL LY REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DELHI CLOTH * GENERAL MILLS : AIR 1963 (SC) 781 AND DY. C ST VS. PIO FOOD PACKERS : 46 STC 63. BASED ON THE AFORESAID, IT WAS THE SUBMIS SION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING OF AN A IR PURIFIER AMOUNTED TO MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IC OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED U PON THE RECENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS . ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8036 OF 2009 , ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 9812/2008, WHEREIN THE APEX COURT HE LD THAT THE CONVERSION OF MARBLE BLOCKS INTO SLABS AND TILES AM OUNTED TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80-IA OF THE IT ACT. ALTERNATIVELY, THE APP ELLANT ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSEMBLY OF SOME FINISHED GOODS WOUL D ALSO AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION FOR THE PUR POSE OF 80IC OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FO LLOWING DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD :- 1. R.K. SHARMA (2009) 309 ITR 344 (AAR) 2. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. (2001) 251 ITR 323 (SC) 3. ANAND AAFFILIATES V. ITO: 108 TTJ 87 7 (CHD) ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 8 4. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA V. ITO: 15 SOT 2 94 (CHD) AND 5. THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TATA LOCOMOTIVE: 68 ITR 325. APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ORDERS O F T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANAND AFFLIATES (SUPRA) AND MAHESH CHAN D SHARMA (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN 221 CTR 167 AND 221 CTR 163 RESPECTIVELY. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE OTHER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACTIVITY AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION IS TO FIRST CHECK WHETHER AS A RESULT OF SUCH ACTIVITY(IES), A COMMERCIALLY NEW AND DISTINCT PRODUCT IS GENERATED FROM THE INPUTS USED IN SUCH MANUFACTURE/ PRODUCTION OR NOT. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATE ON FACTS THAT A NEW AND DISTINCT PRODUCT IS GENERATED / MANUFACTURES FROM T HE RAW MATERIAL USED IN ITS PREPARATION. IT IS NOTICED THA T THE APPELLANT HAS USED, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING INPUTS IN MANUF ACTURE OF THE AIR-PURIFIER :- A) FAN B) MOTORS C) 3 FILTERS D) U.V. LIGHT IT IS FURTHER NOTICED FROM THE FLOWCHART A NNEXED BY THE APPELLANT THAT MANUFACTURING OF AN AIR PURIFIER DOE S NOT MERELY INVOLVE ASSEMBLING SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS TO CARRY OUT VARIOUS OPERATIONS/ACTIVITIES ON EACH OF THE COMPONENTS BEF ORE THE SAME COULD BE UTILIZED. STERI-AIR AIR PURIFICATION SYSTEMS USE MUL TIPLE TECHNOLOGIES LIKE OZONE GAS, ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR, ULTRA V IOLET GERMICIDAL IRRADIATION, MULTIPLE MECHANICAL FILTERS LIKE SYNTH ETIC PRE FILTERS, SECONDARY FILTERS, ACTIVATED CARBON FILTERS, HEPA (H IGH EFFICIENCY PARTICULATE ARRESTSOR) FILTERS IN VARIOUS PERMUTATI ONS AND COMBINATIONS. STERI-AIR IS A VERSATILE SYSTEM, WHIC H CAN BE USED IN ALMOST ALL AREAS OF A HOSPITAL OF A CONTINUOUS 24 X 7 BASIS. MANUFACTURING OF STERI-AIR IS AN ASSEMBLY PROCESS, WHERE VARIOUS ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 9 PARTS/COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM ARE PROCURED FROM DI FFERENT VENDORS AND ASSEMBLE THE SAME AT FACTORY. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE INPUTS, GETS CONVERTED INTO AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL EXISTENCE AND UTILI TY. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT THERE IS ONLY ASSEMBLIN G OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATE THAT VARIOUS PROCESSES ARE UNDERTAKEN IN THE MANUFA CTURE /PRODUCTION OF THE AIR-PURIFIER. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DECISIONS OF THE PUNJ AB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANAND AFFILIATES & MAHESH CHAND SHARMA AND THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA LOCOMOTIVE CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT EVEN ASSEMBL ING OF VARIOUS PARTS AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE PURPOS ES OF SECTIONS 80IB/80IC OF THE I.T. ACT IF SUCH PROCESSE S RESULTS IN FORMATION OF A COMMERCIALLY NEW AND DISTINCT PRODUC T FROM THE INPUTS USED IN ITS MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE BASE, MOTORS, FILTER, U.V. LIGHT ETC. WHICH ARE USED AS INPUTS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF AN AIR-PURIFIER, ARE ALL GOODS, SEPARATE AND COM MERCIALLY DISTINCT FROM THE FINAL PRODUCT, I.E. THE AIR PURIF IER. IN FACT, THE COILS, FILTER, U.V. LIGHT AND MOTORS CAN ALSO BE US ED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF OTHER ARTICLES/THINGS. IN VIEW OF AB OVE FACTS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC TO THE APPELLANT. ANOTHER FACTOR WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE APP ELLANT IS THE RECENT DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ARIHANT TILES (SUPRA) AND ASPINWALL & CO. (251 ITR 323). IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC TO THE APPE LLANT. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLO W DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THERE IS NO DI SPUTE THAT ASSEMBLING OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS / PARTS HAS RESULTED IN FOR MATION OF A ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 10 COMMERCIALLY NEW AND DISTINCT PRODUCTS FROM THE I NPUTS USED IN ITS MANUFACTURE / PRODUCTION. IN ANOTHER WORDS THE PART S USED IN ISOLATION CANNOT PURIFY THE AIR WHICH IS OBJECT OF THE AIR PU RIFIER UNLESS THESE PARTS ARE ASSEMBLED TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT. WE THUS FULLY CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY HIM WHICH IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS FOLLOWED BY HIM IN THIS REGARD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURI NG OF THE AIR PURIFIER AND WAS THUS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IC OF THE ACT. BESIDES IT IS ALSO WORTH TO NOTE THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES LIKE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ETC. HAVE ALSO RECOGNIZED THE ASSESSEE AS A MANUFACTURER. WE ARE THUS NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND INVOLVING T HE ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JANUARY 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATE 10 TH JANUARY, 2014 VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT ITA NOS.1434/DEL/2010, 4119, 4120/DEL/2012 11 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT