DCIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Soni Marble & Mining Pvt. Ltd., NATHDWARA

ITA 575/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9466 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G R VARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR B EFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. D. RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO:575 / JU / 2009 ASSTT. YEAR:2006 2007 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS M/S SONI M ARBLE & MINING (P).LTD, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KARJIYA GHTI, UDAIPUR. N.H.8, NATHDWARA. PAN:AAFCS0138M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AVADESH KUMAR, D.R., RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.R. VARMA, A.R., ORDER PER V. D. RAO: JM 1. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), JAIPUR DATED 13.11.2009 IN RELAT ING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SLABS AND TILES BY CONVERTING M ARBLE BLOCKS AND LUFFERS. THE ASSESSEES COMPANY PROCESSES MARBLE BLOCKS AND LUFFERS FROM THE MARKET AND AFTER THESE MARBLE BLOCKS AND LUFFERS PA SSES THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DRESSING WITH THE HELP OF DRESSING MACHINE FOR C ONVERTING THEM INTO 2 PARTICULAR SIZE AND SHAPE. FURTHER THE DRESSED MAR BLE AND LUFFERS ARE SENT FOR SAWING PROCESS WITH THE HELP OF GANGSAW MACHINE. T HROUGH THIS PROCESS THE OUT COME OF THE PRODUCT WHICH COMES OUT IS KNOWN AS SLAB, WHICH IS THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE SLAB PA SSED THROUGH THE EDGE CUTTING MACHINE, THEN IT IS CONVERTED INTO SMALL PI ECES, CALLED TILES, WHICH IS ANOTHER FINISHED PRODUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80 1B OF RS.8,16,279/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ABOVE STATED PROCESS IS AMOUNTING T O MANUFACTURE AND ENTITLED U/S 80 1B. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DENIED THE CLAIM MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER AN D APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). THE LD. CIT (A) BY FOLLOWING THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER AND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL COVERED BY T HE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 AND HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A). ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R., SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSE THE RECORDS AND GONE TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE 80-IB BY FOLLOWING ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004. THE LD. D.R., H AS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CA SE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2003-2004. IT WAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO SHOW THAT THE SAI D ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN MODIFIED OR REVERSED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT. F URTHER THE LD. D.R., COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY DECISION. 7. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF RAJASTH AN IN SIMILAR SET OF THE FACTS HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD. VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 295 ITR 148 (RAJ) WHEREIN THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT PROCESS OF CUTTING AND SAWING OR SIZING OR POLISHING OF MARBLE BLOCKS INTO SLABS AND TILES WHICH RESULTS IN MAKING RAW MARBLE USABLE AMOUNTS TO MANU FACTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SS.80-IA AND 80-IB. THE REVENUE HAS CARRIED THE SAME CASE FOR APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD., 320 ITR 79 HAS HELD THAT CONVERSION OF MARBLE BLOCKS INTO POLISHED SLABS AND TILES CONSTITUTES MANUFACTU RE OR PRODUCTION. WE, 4 THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ASSESSEES OW N CASE AND ALSO THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE SUPREM E COURT (SUPRA), THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. 9. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (V. D. RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 09-02-2011 KAMAL KUMAR COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE CIT (A)/TH E D.R.,