ITO, Jaipur V. M/S STAR INTERNATIONAL, Jaipur

ITA 506/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 50623114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAGHUVEER SINGH DAGUR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

1 ITA 506(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 506/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. STAR INTERNATIO NAL, WARD 2(3), 38, MADRAMPURA, CIVIL LINES, JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 69/JP/2011 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 506/JP/2011) ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08. M/S. STAR INTERNATIONAL, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, JAIPUR. WARD 2(3), JAIPUR. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) \ APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAGHUVEER SINGH DAGUR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2011. ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 21/10/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT AND CROSS OBJECTIO N BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PR ESSED, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 3. IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 88,97,836/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REFU ND GRANTED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AS AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTIN G THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MENTHOL AND ALLIED PRO DUCTS. THE MANUFACTURING UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED IN JAMMU. THE ASSESSEE ENJOYS EXEMPTION FROM LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY AS PER THE NEW INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND OTHER CONCESSIONS FOR THE STATE OF J&K. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID EXCISE DUTY OF RS. 8897836/- CHARGED FROM THE CUSTOMERS TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND HAS FURTHER RECEIVED BACK AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE EXCISE DUTY PAID FROM THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER SHOWN THIS PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY NOR REFUND RECEIV ED IN P&L ACCOUNT. THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS INCLUSIVE OF THE R EFUNDS RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE FROM THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT ON WHICH AS PER THE AO TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4). THAT ONLY PROFIT AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR SAID DEDUCTION. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS, THEREF ORE, ISSUED AND AFTER CONSIDERING REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE AO DISALLOWED DEDUCTI ON U/S 80 IB ON THE REFUNDS OF RS.8897836/- RECEIVED FROM THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPAR TMENT. 5. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NE W INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND OTHER CONCESSIONS FOR THE STATE OF J&K AND RELATED EXCISE DUTY NOTIFICATION FROM PAGE NO. 11 TO 17 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5.1. THE AO HAS TAKEN SUPPORT FROM VARIOUS CASE LAW S INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING TO HOLD THAT THE REFUND RECEIVED FROM CENTRAL EXCISE IS REV ENUE RECEIPT. 3 1. SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) DISCUSSING THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WITH THE FACTS OF SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), TH E AO HAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE RATIO OF SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT CA SE IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN BOTH THE CASES PACKAGE OF INCENTIV ES WERE GIVEN BY A NOTIFICATION TO RUN INDUSTRY MORE PROFITABLY. THE PURPOSE WAS NOT T O HELP THE ASSESSEE TO SET UP THE BUSINESS OR COMPLETE A PROJECT BUT TO MAKE THE INDU STRY MORE COMPETITIVE AND COST EFFECTIVE VIZ A VIZ OTHER SUCH MANUFACTURERS OUTSID E THE STATE OF J&K. IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, IT WAS HEL D THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THE SUBSIDIES WHETHER MAY BE BY WA Y OF REFUND OF SALES TAX OR RELIEF OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES OR WATER CHARGES CAN BE TREA TED AS AN AID TO SETTING UP INDUSTRY OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ITS PRODUCTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE INCENTIVE IN TH E FORM OF REPAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY WAS REVENUE IN NATURE AND NOT CAPITAL. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FREE TO USE THE MONEY IN ITS BUSINESS ENTIRELY AS IT LIKED AND WAS NOT OBLIGED TO SPEND MONEY FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE AO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN DE TAIL THE DECISION OF HONBLE AMRITSAR BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF GURDASPUR COO PERATIVE SUGAR MOLL VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 344/ASR/2008 WHEREIN THE DECISION OF HON BLE S.C. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STERLING FOODS 237 ITR 579 AND CIT VS. PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. 262 CTR 278 WERE REFERRED TO AND THE TERM DERIVED FROM WAS D ISCUSSED. THE AO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED SOME OTHER CASE LAWS TO MAKE DISTINCTION. THE AO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI H.C. IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. (2009) 221 CTR 133 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT T HE SCHEME OF REFUND OF EXCISE 4 DUTY IS DIFFERENT AND INSPITE OF EARLIER DECISION O F CIT VS. STERLING FOODS AND CIT VS. PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD., DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB WAS ALL OWABLE. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISH ABLE. FURTHER, THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE S.C. IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT REPORTED IN 2009-TIOL-10-IT-SC (317 ITR 218). IN THIS CASE IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT INCENTIVE PROFITS WHICH INCLUDED DEPB AND DUTY DRAW BACK ARE INCENTIVES WHICH FLOW FROM THE SCHEMES FRAMED BY CENTRAL GOVT. OR FROM SECTION 75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 AND, THEREFORE, THESE INCENTIVES PROFITS ARE NOT PR OFITS DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS U/S 80IB. THE AO HAS FURTHER HELD THAT REM ISSION OF DUTY IS ON ACCOUNT OF STATUTORY/POLICY PROVISIONS IN THE CUSTOMS ACT/SCHE MES FRAMED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. AS THIS DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT HAS FINALLY S ETTLED THE DISPUTE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI H.C. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NO LONGER COVER THIS ISSUE. REGARDING THE EXCISE EX PENSES IS INCURRED BY THE UNIT AND LATER ON RECEIVED FROM THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. AS P ER THE AO THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING TWO DEBTORS IN ITS ACCOUNT- ONE THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND THE OTHER ONE, THE CONCERNED CUSTOMER. FROM THE CUSTOMER, ON RECEIPTS OF SALE PRICE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES BACK THE EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT INCLUDED THER EIN. IN ANY CASE, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE PAYS FIRST TO THE D EPARTMENT AND RECOVERS LATER ON THE SALE PRICE FROM ITS CUSTOMERS WHICH INCLUDES THE EL EMENT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID BY HIM. 5.2. SUBMISSION FILED BY THE AR TO THE AO HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO.2 TO 11 WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 80 IB WAS MADE, RESULTING INTO AN ADDITION OF RS. 8897 836/-. 5 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE UN IT OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED IN JAMMU. IN TERMS OF NEW INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND OTH ER CONCESSIONS FOR THE STATE OF J&K THE GOVT. OF INDIA ANNOUNCED PACKAGE FOR J&K AN D PROVIDED FOR EXCISE DUTY EXEMPTION TO NEW INDUSTRIES IN J&K. VIDE NOTIFICATI ON NO. 56 OF THE SCHEMES THE ASSESSEE ENJOYS EXEMPTION FROM LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY. TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE EXEMPTION A PROCEDURE WAS NOTIFIED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 57. TH E PRODUCT IS EXEMPT FROM EXCISE DUTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT EXCISE DUTY AMOUNT BY 7 TH OF NEXT MONTH BUT THE SAME WAS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY 15 TH OF NEXT MONTH. THUS, WHATEVER REFUNDED TO THE APPELLANT WAS NOT EXCISE D UTY BUT AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT WHICH WAS DEPOSITED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROCEDU RE LAID DOWN. AS THE PRODUCT IS EXEMPT FROM EXCISE DUTY THERE CANNOT BE ANY REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY. THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD WAS DEBITED T O AN ACCOUNT AS AMOUNT RECOVERABLE AND WHEN THE SAME WAS RECOVERED IT WAS CREDITED TO THE SAID ACCOUNT. WITH THIS, NO PART OF IT EITHER DEBIT OR CREDIT, ENTERED THE PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 6.1. THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB(4) ON THE SO CALLED EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS WELL SETTLED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. (2009) 221 CTR 133 (DEL) 2. SURESH KUMAR BAJORIA VS. ITO 113 TTJ (JP) 364 THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMC HAND LTD. (2009) 221 CTR 133 (SEL) HAS BECOME FINAL AS THE SLP FILED HAS BEEN RE JECTED. THE AO HAS HIMSELF MISPLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENT: 1. CIT VS. STERLING FOODS 237 ITR 579 (SC) AND 2. CIT VS. PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. 262 CTR 2785 (SC) 3. CIT VS. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES LTD. 242 ITR 204. 6 6.2. THESE JUDGMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE LAW AS WELL AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATELY DISTINGUISHED BETW EEN THE AO. THE AO HAS PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS OF HONB LE (SC) IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT REPORTED AT 317 ITR 218 (SC). APPLICABILITY OF RATIO OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT CASE ON THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS AND LAW HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE HONBLE GAUHATI H.C. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. THE HONBLE G AUHATI H.C. WHILE CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LI BERTY INDIA HAS HELD THAT THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND DID NOT APPEAR TO BEAR CHARACTE R OF INCOME SINCE WHAT IS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS THE AMOUNT PAID UNDER THE MODALITIE S PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE EXEMPTION NOTIFICA TIONS. THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOVERED OR PASSED O N THE EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT TO ITS CUSTOMERS. THE HONBLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN ASSUMING THE REFUND DOES AMOUNT TO INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS A PROFIT OR GAIN DIRECTLY DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES. THE PAYMENT OF CENT RAL EXCISE DUTY HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND SIMILARLY THE REFUND O F THE CENTRAL EXCUSE DUTY ALSO HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCUSE DUTY WOULD NOT ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDUSTRI AL ACTIVITY. THERE IS, THEREFORE, AN INEXTRICABLE LINK BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVIT Y, PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AND ITS REFUND. THE HONBLE COURT, THEREFORE, DECIDED T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA CASE HAS NO APPLICATION ON THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR THAT THE DECISION OF HONBL E GAUHATI H.C. THERE REMAINS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ORDER OF AO IN REJECTING THE CLAIM U/S 80 IB(4). 7 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA, 317 ITR 218 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD., 221 CTR 133 (DEL.) AGAINST THE SLP FILED BY DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND, FOUND THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. ACCORDINGLY HE ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. 8. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQ UARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DHARAMPAL PREMC HAND LTD. (SUPRA) AGAINST WHICH SLP FILED BY DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIG H COURT IN CASE OF M/S. MEHGALAYA STEELS LTD., 241 CTR 384, COPIES OF THESE DECISIONS ARE ALSO FILED BY LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR FAC TS IN CASE OF SURESH KUMAR BAJORIA IN ITA NO. 592/JP/2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.9.2007 THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DHARAMPAL PREM CHAND LTD. (SUPRA), COPY OF ORDER IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING OTHER MATE RIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY 8 IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A), WHO HAS ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DHARAMPAL PREM CHAND LTD. (SUPRA) AGAINST WHICH THE SLP FILED BY DEPARTM ENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIG H COURT. THIS DECISION HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT (A). THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT PAGES 5 TO 6 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- CONTENTION OF THE AR IS CONSIDERED. THE ISSUE OF D EDUCTION U/S 80 IB(4) ON REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY WAS DECIDED BY HONBLE DEL HI H.C. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB. THE AO COULD IGNOR E THE ABOVE DECISION FOR TWO REASONS: 1. THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI H.C. DID NOT REACH ITS FIN ALITY 2. THE HONBLE S.C. MEANWHILE IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA V S. CIT 317 ITR 218 HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. NOW THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN REJECTED AND, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI H.C. HAS BECOME FINAL. FU RTHER, THE HONBLE GAUHATI H.C. IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEELS (REFER RED BY THE AR) HAS HELD THAT THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND DOES NOT B EAR THE CHARACTER OF INCOME. WHAT IS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS THE AMO UNT PAID UNDER MODALITY PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION. AS THERE IS ALSO NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOVERED OR PASSED ON THE EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT TO ITS CUSTOMERS THE HONBLE COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT E VEN IF THE REFUND IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT THIS INCOME I S DIRECTLY DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY OR MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY. THE HONBLE COURT HAS FOUND INEXTRICABLY LINK BETWEEN T HE MANUFACTURING 9 ACTIVITY AND PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AS WELL AS ITS REFUND. IN THE EARLIER JUDGMENTS BECAUSE NO DIRECT NEXUS WAS FOUND BETWEEN THE DUTY DRAW BACK/DEPB AND SALE OF IMPORT ENTITLEMENT WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OR AN INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY, SUCH BENEFITS W ERE NOT CONSIDERED AS PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. AS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO OTHER CONT RARY DECISION OF ANY H.C. IS AVAILABLE, THE SAME HAS BINDING FORCE. RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI H.C. IN THE ABOVE REFER RED CASE OF CIT VS. MEGHALAYA STEELS (SUPRA), THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THE ITO WARD -2(3 ), JAIPUR IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOU R OF THE APPELLANT AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB(4) ON THE EXCISE REFUND RECEIVED. THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4) ON EXCISE REFUND OF RS. 8897836/- THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPEL LANT. 12. IN VIEW OF THE REASONING GIVEN BY LD. CIT (A) A ND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND CRO SS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 14. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 .10.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/- 10 COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ITO WARD 2(3), JAIPUR. M/S. STAR INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 506(2)/JP/2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.