ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI V. RAJ PETRO SPECIALITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6840/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0250 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Question of law
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6840/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ACIT-10(2), 432, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., 124, GD AMBEDKAR MARG, KALCHOWKY, COTTON GREEN (W), MUMBAI - 400 033 PAN: AACCS 4923P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.6712/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., 124, GD AMBEDKAR MARG, 1 ST FLOOR, KALCHOWKY, COTTON GREEN (W), MUMBAI - 400 033 PAN: AACCS 4923P VS. A DDL. CIT , RG. 10(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 26.07. 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS ONE BY THE REVENUE AND TH E OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER DATE D 01.08.2014 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 2 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PLANT AND MANUFACTUR ING OF SPECIALTY OILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 15 TH OCTOBER 2010 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.54,25,40,389/-. THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURING UNIT LOCATED IN SILVASSA AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ON THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES THEREON AMOUN TING TO RS.7,03,89,728/-. THE AO HAS, WHILE CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IB, INCLUDED THE INTEREST INCOME FROM PROFIT AND GAIN DERIVED FROM E LIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE SAID UNIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDIT AMOUNT OF RS.70.41 LAKHS BEING INTEREST INCOME DERIVED FROM MARGIN MONEY MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK AND SAME WAS CLASSIF IED AS OTHER INCOME IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY IMPORTS RAW MATERIAL SUCH AS BASE OIL AND PETROLEUM JELLY FROM ASIAN AND MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN LETTER OF CREDIT FAC ILITIES TO FACILITATE IMPORT TRANSACTIONS AND FOR THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS AVA ILED THE FACILITY FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA AND CORPORATION BANK. THE ASSESSEE H AS KEPT MARGIN MONEY AT 10% OF THE AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE FROM THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE 5% TO 10% ON MARGIN MONEY THAT REMAINS WITH THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT WHILE WORKING OUT PROF ITS AND GAINS OF OR PROFESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80IB. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) HAS EXCLUDED THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME WHILE C OMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A), WHILE CONSIDERING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS, HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORED THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VER IFY THE DIRECT NEXUS IF ANY BETWEEN THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED AND INTEREST PAI D AND ACCORDINGLY REDUCE ONLY ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 3 THE NET INTEREST AFTER SATISFACTION. SUBJECTED TO THIS DIRECTION THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THEREFORE, AGAINST UPHOLDING THE EXCLUSION OF INTER EST OF RS.24,18,132/- ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2 009-10. 5. THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN ITA NO.3427/M/2012 WHEREIN THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO RESTOR ED THE ISSUE TO THE AO. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: 8.1 WE FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE DEC ISIONS AND BEGIN WITH THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,69,82,358/-. THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO CORRELATE THE EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE INCOME TO GET THE NECESSARY DEDUCTION PROVIDED ALL THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 57 (III) OF THE ACT ARE COMPLIED IT IS N ECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOULD DEMONSTRATE BEFORE THE A.O. WITH EVIDENCE TH AT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE UTILISED FOR MAKING FDR ON WHICH INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED TO GET THE DEDUCTION AS STIPULATED U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE IS SET ASIDE AND THE SAME IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DE-NOVO DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOV E DISCUSSION AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. ALSO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE A.O. EVIDENCE THA T THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS OF THE UTILISATION OF THE INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING FDRS. 7. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL, WE RESTORE THIS MATTER TO THE AO. 8. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE DISMISSED AND GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 4 GROUND NO.3 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL: 9. THE AO HAS EXCLUDED RS.13,38,935/- WHILE COMPUTI NG THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10). 10. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CI T(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.15 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE PLANT & MAC HINERY WHICH WAS USED FOR BLENDING AND MANUFACTURING OF SPECIALITY OILS WERE ONLY USED TO CARRY OUT THE JOB WORK FOR OTHERS. THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE JOB WORK IS NOTHING BUT A DERIVED INCOME' FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS PER PROV ISIONS OF SEC.80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. AS PER VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, MENTIONED A BOVE THIS SECTION DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE THE INCOME WHETHER IT IS DERIVED OUT OF OWN MANUFACTURING OR OUT OF THE JOB WORK. HENCE, IT HAS TO BE REGARDED THAT DOI NG PROCESSING JOB WORK AMOUNTS TO CARRYING OUT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY BY THE INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS 'ALLOWED' 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND TH AT THE AO HAS NOT INCLUDED RS.13,38,935/- WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB . WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DEC ISION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPEL FORGE & ALLIED INDU STRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 326 ITR 27 (P & H) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE HON' BLE INCO ME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SEC T ION 80-IB IS PERMISSIBLE ON INCOME DERIVED FROM PROCESSING ACTIVITIES AS PROCES SING ACTIVITIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE MANUFACTURE OF A PRODUCT ?' 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRA DING OF TRACTOR AND AUTO PARTS AND ALSO DOING JOB WORK OF SIMILAR NATURE. IT CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT ON INCOME FROM JOB WORK, W HICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN AFF IRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. 4. THE ONLY CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS OWN MANUFACTURING BUT THE SAID DED UCTION WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR THE JOB WORKS DONE FOR OTHERS. 5. REFERENCE TO SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR ITS APPLICABILITY IS DERIVING OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS R EFERRED TO IN SUBSECTIONS (3) TO ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 5 (11), (11A) AND (11B) OF THE ACT, APART FROM OTHER CONDITIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT CONCERNED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE TH AT THE PAGE NO : 0029 BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL UNDER SUB-SE CTIONS (3) TO (11), (11A) OR (11B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO DO MANUFACTURE FOR ITSELF OR FOR OTHERS, WHICH MAKES NO DIFFERENCE FOR PURPOSES OF S ECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO RELIED UPON SIMILAR VIEW TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. NORTHERN AROMATICS LIMITED [2005] 196 CTR 479. 6. SINCE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY THE BARE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.3 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 13. GROUND NO.3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATES TO EXC LUSION OF RECOVERY FOR DEBT RETURN OF EARLIER AMOUNTING TO RS.2,72,381/-. THE AO, WHILE WORKING OUT THE ORIGINAL DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB, HAS EXCL UDED RS.2,72,381/- UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS INCOME. THE AO DID NOT ACCE PT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW IN ABSENCE OF ALL THE DETAILS THE AO HAS DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. A .R. SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2009-10 WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE BEGIN WITH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), IT IS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IT IS NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE ON SALE OF DEPB CREDIT, BUT THE SALE VALUE LESS THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB THAT WILL REPRESENT PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB CREDIT BY THE ASSESSEE. ALSO IT IS HELD THEREIN THAT 90% OF NOT THE GROSS RENT OR GROSS INT EREST BUT ONLY THE NET INTEREST OR NET RENT, WHICH HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN TH E PROFITS OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', WAS TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC FOR DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. IN MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. (SUPRA), IT IS HELD THAT T RANSPORT SUBSIDY, INTEREST SUBSIDY, POWER SUBSIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSI DY ARE REVENUE ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 6 RECEIPTS WHICH ARE REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR E LEMENTS OF COST RELATING TO MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS, T HERE IS CERTAINLY A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE I NDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR BUSINESS AND SUCH SUBSIDIES AND THEREFORE, THE A MOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUBSIDIES QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UND ER SS 80-LB AND 80-IC. IN M/S. VADINAR POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA), THE ISSUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS) AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY THE NET INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS TO PROVE NEXUS BE TWEEN THE SO CALLED INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND INTEREST INCOME.' THE TRIB UNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO MAKE A DE-NOVO ASS ESSMENT. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROV E THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2,72,381/- WAS RECEIVED WHICH IS THE INCOME DER IVED FROM UNDERTAKING. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO AND AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE SALES WHICH WERE MADE FROM SILVASSA UNIT AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. HENCE, GROUND NO.3 OF TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO.4 15. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AO DID NOT INCLUDE INSURANCE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSIT LOSS OF FINISHED PRODUCTS WHI CH WAS MANUFACTURED AND SUPPLIED TO THE CUSTOMER FROM SILVASSA UNIT. THE M ATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A), RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, HAS HELD THAT INSURANCE CLAIM IS EXCLUDED FROM THE INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I AND ALSO HELD THAT INSU RANCE RECEIVED FROM LOSS OF STOCK IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0I. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THE ISSUE IN PARA 7.3 IN HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 7 7.3. THE APPELLANT HAD MADE AN ALTERNATE GROUND ON A WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS THAT ONLY THE NET INSURANCE CLAIM S HOULD BE EXCLUDED AS AGAINST GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROFIT & GAINS DER IVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U IS. 801B OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE ACTUAL LOSS WAS RS.9,50,815/- HOWEVER THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,19,323/- TOWARDS INSURANCE CLAIM. IN MY VIEW, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB WH AT NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED IS THE NET AMOUNT RECEIVED AND NOT THE GRO SS CLAIM MADE BEFORE THE INSURANCE COMPANY. TO THIS EXTENT I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND THIS GROUND RAI SED IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KHEMKA CONTAINER (P.) LTD. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT HAS DEALT THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL AND IT HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SO AS TO CLARIFY THE DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80IA. 10. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS AND IN PARTI CULAR, DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD.S CASE (SUPRA) , AND STERLING FOODS' CASE (SUPRA) WE ARE CLEARLY OF THE VIEW THAT AMOUNT OF INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I OF THE ACT. WE, HOWEVER, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 1,50,733 IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF RAW MATERIAL DESTROYED IN FIRE. HOW EVER, WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I, WHAT HAS TO BE EXCLUD ED IS NOT THE GROSS RECEIPT BUT THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THIS RECEIPT. SUCH INCOME CAN ONLY BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING THE COST OF RAW MATERIAL D ESTROYED IN FIRE FROM THE GROSS RECEIPT OF INSURANCE CLAIMS. THE RAW MATERIAL HAD BEEN ADMITTEDLY PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AND ITS COST DEBITED IN THE PURCHASE ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR. 18. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE AO TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNT AS PER THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. THIS GROUND OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. GROUND NO.5 19. THE AO HAS EXCLUDED THE HIGHER CHARGES AMOUNTIN G TO RS.55,61,797/- FROM PROFIT WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IB OF THE ACT. ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 8 20. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CI T(A) HAS DISMISSED THE SAME. 21. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERE D BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 3427/M/2012. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 8.3 THE NEXT ITEM IS HIRE CHARGES INCOME OF RS.58, 57,428/-. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONFIRMATION DATED 12.03.2 012 FROM M/S SUNNY LIQUID MOVERS PVT. LTD. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE ABOVE DOCUMENT BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE S AME TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED TO FILE THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE AO 22. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE RESTORE THI S ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 23. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ASSESSEE HAS FILE D ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE US WHICH WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION VS. CIT 291 ITR 383 SC, WE ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.08.2017. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18.08.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT ITA NO.6840/M/2014 & ITA NO.6712/M/2014 M/S. RAJ PETRO SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD. 9 THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.