Sri. JASWANT RAJ SANCHETI, MUMBAI V. ACIT 14(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7008/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1590 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG
• Section: 80IB; 80IA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 7008/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 JASWANT RAJ SANCHETI PROP. M/S. CHIMA STONE CREATION 72, CHAMPA GALLI 4 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI2. PAN AAIPS-1250-Q VS. ACIT 14 (3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI ASHOK JAIN FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI ANKUR GARG ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE. HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND TRADING OF GRANITE SLABS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. CHIMA STONE CREATION. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON INVOLVES THE F OLLOWING ACTIVITY I.E., (A) PURCHASE OF RAW GRANITE BLOCK IN CUBIC METRES ( B) DRESSING OF BLOCK (SIZE FIXATION) (C) SAWING IN CUTTER MACHINE (D) ST ABLE CUTTING AND POLISHING AND CERTAIN SALES AFTER EDGE CUTTING (TIL ES). THUS, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE RAW GRANITE BLOCKS IN WHICH EVENT THE ACTIVITY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND DENIED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA/80IB O F THE ACT. LEARNED CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF LUCKY MINMAMAT P. LTD. VS. CIY 245 ITR 830 TO HO LD THAT POLISHING OF GRANITE IS ONLY TO GIVE BETTER PRESENTATION OF THE PRODUCT AND BY SUCH 2 PROCESS NO NEW COMMODITY COMES INTO EXISTENCE SO AS TO CONSIDER THE ACTIVITY AS A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. 2. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES P. LTD . (2010) 320 ITR 79 TO SUBMIT THAT UPON CONSIDERING THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT IT WAS HELD THAT IN SO FAR AS SAWING MARBLE BLOCKS INT O SLABS AND TILES AND POLISHING THEM IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A MANUFACTUR ING ACTIVITY, HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIALIZED ACTIVITY INVOLVED THEREIN . 3. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE LIGHT OF LATEST DECISION OF THE APEX COURT (SUPRA), WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CAS E, WE HOLD THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CONSIDER ED AS A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE 07 TH JUNE, 2010. VBP/- 3 COPY TO 1. JASWANT RAJ SANCHETI, PROP. M/S. CHIMA STONE CRE ATION 72, CHAMPA GALLI 4 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI2. PAN AAIPS-1250-Q 2. ACIT 14 (3), MUMBAI. 3. THE CIT (A)-XV MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT, CITY-14, MUMBAI. 5. DR E BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASST. REGI STRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. SNO DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 07-06-2010 SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 07-06-2010 SR.P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 07-06-2010 V.P. 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 07-06 -2010 A.M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER