The Income-tax Officer, Jammu V. Sh Sanjay Jain Prop. M/s Ganesh Jewellers & M/sGanesh Ornaments, Jammu

ITA 96/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1450 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V K SINGH
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP : JAMMU) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.96(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN: ADAPJ8214G INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. SANJAY JAIN, WARD-2(3), JAMMU. PROP. M/S. GANESH JEWELLERS & M/S. GANESH ORNAMENTS, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. K.V.K. SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. VINAMAR GUPTA, FCA DATE OF HEARING: 03/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/12/2015 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM THIS IS THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/12/2014, PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A), JAMMU. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN D ELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 80IB OF THE ACT, AS THE CONVERSION OF 24K GOLD INTO 22K GOLD DOESNT AMOUNT THE MANUFACTURE AND AS IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT,1961002E 3. WHETHER THE CIT(A), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 80IB OF THE ACT., IN VI EW OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MIL LS CO. ITA NO.96(ASR)/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 2 LTD. WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN QUOTED THAT MANUFACTURE IMPLIES CHANGE BUT EVERY CHANGE IS NOT MANUFACTURE AND YET EVERY CHANGE OF AN ARTICLE IS THE RESULT OF TREATMENT LAB OUR AND MANIPULATION. 4. WHETHER THE CIT(A), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 80IB OF THE ACT., IN VI EW OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. PIO FOOD PACKER WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT WHERE THE RE IS NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE IDENTITY OR ORIGINAL C OMMODITY HAS BEEN CONSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ANOTHER ALTHOUG H IT HAS UNDERGONE A DEGREE OF PROCESSING IT MUST BE REG ARDED AS STILL RETAINING THE ORIGINAL IDENTITY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF GOLD ORN AMENTS AND IS DULY REGISTERED WITH DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE AND UNDE RTOOK MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF JEWELLERY FROM GOLD BARS. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 24 KT GOLD AND CONVERTED IT INTO 22 KT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.24,21,612/-, WHICH WAS DISA LLOWED BY THE AO HOLDING THAT THE CONVERSION OF 24 KT GOLD INTO 22 K T GOLD DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE AND AS SUCH IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOW ANCE SO MADE BY THE AO. 3. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT THE CONVERSION OF 24KT GOLD INTO 22 KT GOLD DID NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN ASSSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.407(ASR)/2012, DATED 19.02.2013. ITA NO.96(ASR)/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 3 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF TH E MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL STANDS ALREADY ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.407(ASR)/2012, DATED 19.02.2 013. 6. THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HA VE BEEN EITHER UPSET, OR EVEN STAYED ON APPEAL. THE FACTS THEREIN HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN STATED TO BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE BEFORE US. 7. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.02.2013, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DISMI SS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH DE CEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10/12/2015 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. PADMA ORNAMENTS, JAMMU 2. THE ACIT, CIR.2, JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.