WITMAN INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI V. DCIT 24(3), MUBMAI

ITA 94/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7769 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL K SINGH
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. K. AGARWAL, JM & SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM I.T.A. NO. 94/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. WITMAN INDUSTRIES 209, KAMALDEEP INDL. ESTATE, SONAWALA CROSS ROAD NO. 2, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI-63 PAN: AAAPW2900M VS. DY. CIT 24(3), BANDRA, MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MR. SUNIL K. SINGH O R D E R DATE OF HEARING: 01.02.2010 DATE OF ORDER: 02.02.2010 PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2008 OF THE CIT(A)-XXIV, MUMBAI RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS BEING DECIDED O N THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB ON SALE OF DEPB OF RS.14,98,151. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB ON DEPB SALE OF RS.1 4,98,151 ON THE I.T.A. NO. 94/MUM/2009 M/S. WITMAN INDUSTRIES ================= 2 GROUND THAT DEPB CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DERIVED FR OM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 5. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING A COUPLE OF DECISIONS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE FIND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LI BERTY INDIA VS. CIT REPORTED IN 317 ITR 218, WHILE DEALIN G WITH THE ISSUE OF SPECIAL DEDUCTION U/S. 80AB, 80I, 80IA(1)(4) AND 80 IB ETC., HAD AN OCCASION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE WORD DERIVED FROM ACCORDING TO WHICH THE CONNOTATION OF THE WORDS DE RIVED FROM IS NARROWER AS COMPARED TO THAT OF THE WORD ATTRIBUTA BLE TO. BY USING THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM PARLIAMENT INTENDED T O COVER SOURCES NOT BEYOND THE FIRST DEGREE. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HE LD IN THE SAID DECISION THAT DEPB/DUTY DRAW BACK BENEFITS DO NOT F ALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION PROFITS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTA KING UNDER SECTION 80IB. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB ON SA LE OF DEPB. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2010 SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2010 I.T.A. NO. 94/MUM/2009 M/S. WITMAN INDUSTRIES ================= 3 COPY TO: (1) THE APPELLANT, (2) THE RESPONDENT, (3) THE CIT(A)-XXIV, MUMBAI, (4) THE CIT - 24, MUMBAI, (5) THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI TPRAO