ASST CIT CIR 22(1), MUMBAI V. AHURA MAZDA METAL FORMING & FINISHING, MUMBAI

ITA 4890/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83766 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AZGHAR ZAIN V P

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , ! , ' BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJENDRA, A M ITA NO.4890/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) THE ACIT, CIR, 22 (1) ROOM NO.411, 4 TH FLOOR TOWER NO.6, VASHI STATION COMPLEX MUMBAI-400 703. # # # # / VS. SHRI AHURA MAZDA METAL FORMING & FINISHING MAZDA HOUSE, BEHIND ACP OFFICE LBS MARG, GHATKOPAR(W) MUMBAI-400 086. ( %& / // / APPELLANT) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT) %& ) * ) * ) * ) * /APPELLANT BY : SHRI AZGHAR ZAIN V.P. '(%& ) * ) * ) * ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P.BAIRAGRA # ) +, / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2014 -./ ) +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.09.2014 0 0 0 0 / / / / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JM)/ : THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 9/5/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,75,66,847/- U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY SHRI J.P. BAIRAGRA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.4890/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) 2 ITA NO.5129/M/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ORDE R DATED 25/11/2011 AND FURTHER THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WA S DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN IT APPEAL NO.521 OF 2012 ORDER DATED 26/03/2014. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO PRODUCED PHOTOCOP Y OF BOTH THE AFORESAID ORDERS. IN REPLY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN V.P. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.AO BUT DID NOT CONTROVERT T HE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM DEALS IN MANUFACTURING OF STEEL ALMIRAHAS LIKE STOR EWEL, WARDROBE ETC., AT THE RELEVANT TIME THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPLYING TH E MANUFACTURED GOODS TO M/S. GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. THE ASSESSEE UNIT WAS SET UP IN THE NOTIFIED AREA IN NORTH EASTERN ST ATES, DECLARED NET PROFIT AT RS.6,75,66,847/-, CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT AND THUS DECLARED NIL TAXABLE INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED BY THE LD.AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FULFILLING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SECTION. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2.2 IF THE REASON OF DENIAL OF CLAIMED DEDUCTION AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ITA NO.4890/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3 ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL ARE K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED WE NOTE THAT THE BASIC REASON FOR DENI AL BY THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS CONTAIN ED IN THE SECTION FOR CLAIMING THE BENEFIT. SECTION 80IC IS A SPECIAL PRO VISION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE IN CERTAIN SPECIA L CATEGORY STATES. SUB SECTION (1) TO SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT SPEAKS ABOUT GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE WHICH INCLUDES ANY PROFIT AND GAINS DE RIVED BY SUCH UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFER RED TO IN S/S.(2). IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AND A DEDUCTION IS AL LOWABLE FROM SUCH PROFIT AND GAINS AS SPECIFIED IN S/S.(3). THE DEDUC TION REFERRED TO IN S/S.(1) SHALL BE IN THE CASE OF ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE REFERRED TO IN SUB CLAUSES (I) AND (III) OF CLAUSE (A) OR SUB C LAUSES (I) AND (III) OF CLAUSE (B) OF S/S.(2) AT 100% OF SUCH PROFIT AND GA INS FOR 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS OR AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE SECTION IS VERY MU CH CLEAR, THEREFORE, IT AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) . OUR VIEW IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RAMIT KUMAR SHARMA VS. DIT (309 ITR 344) (AAR) . IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IDENTICALLY VIDE ORDER DATED 25/11/2011 (I TA NO.5129/M/2001) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS WORTH MEN TIONING THAT AGAINST THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE DEPARTMENT WENT I N APPEAL BEFORE THE ITA NO.4890/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) 4 HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 26/3/20 12 (ITA NO.521 OF 2012), THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS AFFIRMED. THUS , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR GR ANT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT. ON THIS GROUND WE AFFIRM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED WHEREIN THE S ATISFACTION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE DEED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. AS DISCUSSED IN EARLIER PARA OF THIS OR DER WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS/REQU IREMENT OF SECTION 80IC(2)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE SATISFACT ION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE CONCERNED THAT IS ALSO WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HAVING NO M ERIT, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCL USION OF THE HEARING ON 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 . 0 ) -./ 1 #2 10.09.2014 . ) 9 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ! ! ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! ! ! ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 1 # DATED : 10 TH SEPT. 2014. JV. ITA NO.4890/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) 5 0 ) '+: ;:/+ 0 ) '+: ;:/+ 0 ) '+: ;:/+ 0 ) '+: ;:/+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. < ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. < / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. :?9 '+# , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9@ A / GUARD FILE. 0# 0# 0# 0# / BY ORDER, (:+ '+ //TRUE COPY// B BB B/ // /C C C C (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI