D.C.I.T. RG.8(3), MUMBAI V. SHREE PAR FRAGRANCE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6738/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8924 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N KRISHNAMOORTHY
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 6738/MUM/2011 A.Y 2008-09 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. 8(3), MUMBAI. VS. SHREE PAR FRAGRANCE PVT. LTD., 201, PANDYA MANSION, 625, J.S.S.ROAD, MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 002. PAN: AAFCS 3683 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. KRISHNAMOORTHY. (D.R) RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING: 06-09-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12-09-2012. O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-7-2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y 2008-09. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE ATTENDED NOR FILED A NY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT WAS CO NSIDERED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTE R HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING PERFUMERY COMPOUNDS AND ALSO EARNED RENTAL INCOME ON LETTING OUT OF THE PRO PERTY. THE RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 71,12,487/- . DURING THE COURSE I.T.A. NO. 6738/MUM/2011 SHREE PAR FRAG RANCE PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 OF 4 OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 (THE ACT) OF RS.14,60,686/-. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SIMILAR CL AIM HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE EARLIER FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E . A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2007-08 AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE S AME FOR THE A.Y 2004-05. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, APPEAL U/S. 2 60A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE DETAILS ABOUT THE SAID DEDUCTION AND JUSTIFY THE SA ME. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 19-1-2010 W HICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE 2 PARA 4.1(A) OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN U/S.80IB OF THE ACT . THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES OF BLENDING OF DIFFERENT CHEM ICALS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING. FURTHER THE NEGLIGIBLE CON SUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT USING THE MACHINERY WITH AN AID OF POWER AND HENCE THE ASSESS EE IS REQUIRED TO 20 WORKERS TO BE EMPLOYED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY AO DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB O F RS.14,60,686/-. 4. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS O RDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 727/MUM/2009 FOR A.Y 2006-07 DATED 23-2-2010 AND THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 DATED 7-1-2010, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. I.T.A. NO. 6738/MUM/2011 SHREE PAR FRAG RANCE PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 OF 4 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF AP PEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. 6. AT THE TIME HEARING LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND T HAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMI LAR TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2 005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 200 6-07 [SUPRA] HAS HELD VIDE PARA 6 AS UNDER: 6. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL BY T HE REVENUE IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT. IN I.T.A. NO. 5549/MU M/07 FOR A.Y 2004-05 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON IDENTICAL FAC TS, THIS TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDU CTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. THERE WERE NO DISTINGUISHING F ACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS YEAR. 8. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURES BR OUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSI STENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL, DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND TAKE N BY THE REVENUE, IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 2-09-2012. SD/- SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) (DINESH KU MAR AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER I.T.A. NO. 6738/MUM/2011 SHREE PAR FRAG RANCE PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 OF 4