PRINCEWARE INTERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5226/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 522619914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH KUMAR AGARW AL
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO.5226 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S.PRINCEWARE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., OMKAR ESQUARE, 7 TH FLOOR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, MUMBAI 400 022 PAN: AAACP 3346H ... APPELLANT VS. THE DCIT-8(2), R.NO.216-A, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 MUMBAI. .... RESPON DENT ITA NO.1469 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE DCIT-8(2), R.NO.216-A, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 MUMBAI. .... APPELL ANT VS. M/S.PRINCEWARE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., OMKAR ESQUARE, 7 TH FLOOR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, MUMBAI 400 022 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANUJ KISNADWALA REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAKASH KUMAR AGARW AL DATE OF HEARING : 03/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/09/2015 2 ITA NO.5226&1469 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ORDER PER G.S. PANNU,AM: THE CAPTIONED CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-17, MUMBAI DATED 12/11/2010, PERTAINING T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDE R PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31/12/2009 UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE ACT(IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN SO FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONC ERNED, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DATED 31/8/2015 SEEKING PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. AS THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO OBJECTION, THE A PPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 3. IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.1, 48,88,463/- U/S.80RN OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF UNIT V AND VI, W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALL THE FIVE U NITS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY S UPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR PROVING THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT.' 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3 ITA NO.5226&1469 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) 4. ALTHOUGH, REVENUE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS OF APP EAL, BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING DEDUCTION OF RS.1,48,88,463/- UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNITS NO.V & VI 5. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS, INTER- ALIA, ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF PLASTIC ARTICLES. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO UNITS NO.V & VI ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS BUT WERE A PART AND PARCEL OF THE ORIGINAL UNIT SET UP IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND THE INST ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING 13 TH YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2006-07. A S PER THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED SIX MANUFACTURING UNITS, N AMELY UNIT-I TO UNIT- VI AND EACH ONE OF THEM WAS A SEPARATE AND INDEPEND ENT INDUSTRIAL UNIT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE AFORESAID DECISION OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT A WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE LEAD ORDER IS BY WAY OF IT (SS) NO.222 /MUM/2004 DATED 4 ITA NO.5226&1469 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) 30/03/2006, WHEREBY, DIFFERENT UNITS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 80-IA AND 80- IB OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS FOLLOWED BY SUBSEQUENT BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 VIDE ITA NO.1053/MUM/2006 DT. 16/03/2009. THEREAFTER, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ALSO THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 29/ 8/2008 IN ITA NO.5405/MUM/2006 HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER DECISIONS . SIMILARLY, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALSO VIDE ITA NO.3533/MUM/2 009 DATED 23/02/2010, SIMILAR DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED BY T HE TRIBUNAL. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS, WHICH CONTINUE TO HOLD THE FIELD, WE FIND NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOW ING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE A CT IN RELATION TO UNITS NO.V & VI THUS, REVENUE FAILS IN ITS APPEAL. 7. RESULTANTLY, THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/09/2 015. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (G.S.PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTNAT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 09/09/2015 5 ITA NO.5226&1469 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBA I VM , SR. PS