ADDL CIT 9(2), MUMBAI V. JYOTI PLASTIC WORKS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6696/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8636 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M M VOLVALA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.6696/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ADDL. CIT, 9(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. JYOTI PLASTIC WORKS P. LTD., BOMBAY TALKIES COMPOUND, 94, HINANSHI RAI ROAD, MALAD(W), MUMBAI-64 PA NO.AAACJ 1381 Q (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJARSHI DWIVEDY RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.M.VOLVALA DATE OF HEARING: 4 .9.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 . 10.2012 ORDER PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST ORDER DATED 2.7.2011 OF LD CIT(A) ON FOLLOWING GROUND: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPILED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 80-IB(2)(IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ON IDENTICAL FACTS IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE B Y A COMMON ORDER DATED 5.2.2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2004 -05 IN I.T.A. NOS.2964 TO 2967/M/2008 AND I.T.A. NOS.3443 TO 3444/M/2007. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DEPARTMENT FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000 BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HONB LE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.11.2011 REPORTED IN 339 ITR 491(BOM) DISMISSED A PPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. LD D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE ABOVE FACTS SAVE AND EXCEPT RELYING ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.6694/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 2 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF LD REPRESENTAT IVES OF PARTIES, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA). WE AGREE THAT SAME VERY ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT STATING THAT THE WORKER WOULD PERSONS EMPLOYED INDIRECTLY BY CONTRACTOR FOR CONSIDERING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.80IB OF THE ACT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT LD CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE DATED 5.2.2010 (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT . 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012 SD/- (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),20, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,9 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH B MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI