DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI V. PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6420/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 642019914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRUGAKSHI JOSHI
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVLAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6420 /M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 D.C.I.T., CIR.7(1), R.NO.622, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS P. LTD. 101/102, SUNSHINE PLAZA, NAIGAUM CROSS ROAD, DADAR (E), MUMBAI 400 014 PAN: AAACP 6281H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MRU GAKSHI JOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI M.L. PERUMAL DATE OF HEARING : 02.04 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.04.2014 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 23.07.12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FOLLOWING GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. ON THE FACTS, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATI NG UNIT I & II AS SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TWO UNITS ARE PART OF A SINGLE UNIT WHICH WAS EXPANDED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. ITA NO. 6420/M/2012 M/S. PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS P. LTD. 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS CONTENDED BY LD. A.R. THAT ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 17.06.11 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 WHEREIN EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF SWR PIPES AND FITTINGS. ASSESSEE HAS TWO MANUFACTURING UNITS AT SILVASSA FOR WHICH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB WAS FILED. THE AO HAS DISCUSSE D THE ISSUE OF SEPARATE UNITS, IN WHICH ALL THE UNITS WERE CONSIDERED AS ONE INTEGRATED UNIT AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB WAS DECLINED. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) , AFTER FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008 - 09 , HELD AS UNDER: 2.1. THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD STATED AS UNDER: 1 . THE ONLY ADDITION MADE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 - IB OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE LEARNED AO IN HIS ORDER U/S. 143(3) HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S. 80 - IB IN RESPECT OF UNIT 2 OF RS.78,94,326/ - SINCE A.Y. 2009 - 10 WAS THE 9 TH YEAR OF CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTION. 2 . IN THE PAST ALSO SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE AO HOLDING THAT UNIT NO.2 IS AN EXTENSION OF UNIT NO.1 AND THE SAME NOT BE ING A STANDALONE UNIT. 3 . THE ITAT C BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 09/03/10 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2006 - 07 HAS DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL AND HAS HELD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IS DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WE ALSO INVITE YOUR HONOURS ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN ORDER DATED 17/06/11 IN RESPECT OF AY 2008 - 09 WHEREIN YOU HAVE YOURSELF ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST DISALLOWANCE U/S. 80 - IB. 2.2. FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED: THE HONBLE ITAT IN APPELLANT S OWN CASE HAS HELD THAT UNIT I & II ARE SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. ITA NO. 6420/M/2012 M/S. PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS P. LTD. 3 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMAIN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IN RESPECT OF UNIT II I.E. AY. 09 - 10 (A LLEGEDLY BEING THE NINTH YEAR). 3.0 THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 4. COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WAS ALSO HANDED OVER TO THE LD. D.R., WHO DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, ORDER DATED 17.10.12 WHEREIN PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNA L WAS AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE INASMUCH AS IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SIMILAR CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3581/MUM/2009 FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 ORDER DTD. 9 - 3 - 2010 WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACT S OF ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S PRINCE PLASTICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED IN WHOSE CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED A LEADING ORDER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED AND ACCORDINGLY WE WHILE UP HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), REJECT THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE THE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AS QUOTED ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR TREATING BOTH THE UNITS AS SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. ITA NO. 6420/M/2012 M/S. PRINCE SWR SYSTEMS P. LTD. 4 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.04. 201 4 . SD/ - SD/ - (DR. S.T.M. PAVLAN) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUM BAI, DATED : 02.04. 201 4 . * KISHORE COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT ( A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.