PET FIBRES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5995/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1880 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI D.KARUNAKAR RAO (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.5995/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PET FIBRES LIMITED, 11-B, MITTAL TOWER, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21 PA NO.AAACP 2521 L DCIT 3(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJARSHI DWIVEDY DATE OF HEARING: 11.1.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 .1.2013 ORDER PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 AGAINST ORDER DATED 12.5.2011 OF LD CIT(A)-7, MUMBAI. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQU IRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD CIT( A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80IB IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.5,87,126 RECEIVED ON FIXED DEPOSIT KEPT WITH THE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT FOR DRAWING ELECTRIC POWER F OR THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT A BOVE GROUND IS COVERED AGAINST ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS CIT, 317 ITR 218(SC) AND SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN FOLLOWED BY L D CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, AND IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITA NO.5995/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE OR DER OF LD CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE. 5. GROUND NO.3 IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80IB IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE CLAIM OF RS.14,43,781 WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM HAD BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST THE I NSURANCE OF GOODS RELATING TO THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 6. THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION ELIGIBLE UN DER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED, INTER ALIA, DEDUC TION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT OF RS.14,43,781 WHICH IS INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD OTHE R INCOME. HE STATED THAT SAID INCOME IS NOT DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING U /S. 80IB OF THE ACT AND, ACCORDINGLY, EXCLUDED THE SAME WHILE COMPUTING ELIGIBLE PROFIT U /S. 80IB OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACT ION OF AO ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE SAID INCOME PERTAI NS TO GOODS INSURED TO THE ELIGIBLE UNIT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT NO FURTHER DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACT URING ACTIVITY. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS TWO UNITS AND ONE OF THE UNIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND OTHER UNIT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. LD A.R. CON CEDED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH REQUISITE DETAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID INSURA NCE CLAIM IS ON ACCOUNT OF GOODS DESTROYED RELATES TO UNIT WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF AO, ASSESSEE WILL FURNISH REQUISITE DETAILS AND IF THE SAID CLAIM RELATES TO UNITS WHIC H ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION, BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB MAY BE ALLOWED. LD D.R. SUBMITTED THA T HE HAS NO OBJECTION IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDER ATION. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF LD REPRESENTATIV ES OF PARTIES AND CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE MAY REEXAMINE THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IN ITA NO.5995/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3 RESPECT OF INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF GOODS DESTROYED. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE WILL ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE SAID CLAIM PERTAINS TO ELIGIBLE UNIT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. WE MAY STATE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH REQUISITE DOCUMENTS AND ESTABLISH THE CLAIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF AO, AO WILL DECIDE THE SAME AS PER LAW. HENCE, GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2013 SD/- (D.KARUNAKAR RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2013 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),7, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 3 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH C MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI