Bhagat Textiles Engineers, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA. No. 2252/Ahd/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench decision for AY 2005-06 on materially identical facts, held that the assessee's activity constitutes a manufacturing activity so as to qualify for deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that no additional facts had been brought by the Assessing Officer to warrant departure from that earlier view. Where the facts of a subsequent assessment year are similar to those of an earlier year already decided by a coordinate bench, and no contrary material or new facts are placed before the Tribunal, the earlier decision is to be followed, and the appellate authority's finding on the same issue will not be disturbed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vapi Circle, Vapi Appellant
Vs.
M/s Bhagat Textiles Engineers 122/6, Ground Floor, Waghdhara, Dadra Respondent
PAN: AAFFB8401R
अपीलाथ क ओर से /By Appellant : Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R. ू यथ क ओर से/By Respondent : Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R. सुनवाई क तार!ख/Date of Hearing : 03.03.2015 घोषणा क तार!ख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2015 I T A N o . 2 2 5 2 / A h d / 1 1 A. Y . 2 0 0 8 -0 9 [A C I T v s . M / s . B h a g a t Te x t i le E n g i n e e r s ] Page 2
ORDER
PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:
This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad, dated 30.06.2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 on the following grounds.
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the activity of the assessee as manufacturing activity and observing that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB amounting to Rs.5,55,42,533/- the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored."
2. Assessee is a partnership firm and claimed to have running an industrial undertaking in the name and style of "M/s. Bhagat Textile Engineers" in backward area of U.T. of Dadra & Nagar Haveli is a backward Union Territory as specified in the VIIIth Schedule to the Income Tax Act. As such, manufacturing unit of assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. Assessee has started its manufacturing activity by 27.03.2004 while passing the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.5,58,93,233/- rejecting the claim of assessee u/s. 80IB of the Act on the ground that assessee's activity of assembling does not come under the definition of manufacturing activity as I T A N o . 2 2 5 2 / A h d / 1 1 A. Y . 2 0 0 8 -0 9 [A C I T v s . M / s . B h a g a t Te x t i le E n g i n e e r s ] Page 3
well as assessee could not commenced its manufacturing activities before 31.03.2004. Accordingly, he rejected the claim of assessee amounting to Rs.5,58,93,233/-.
2.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein CIT(A) following its predecessor's decision for A.Y. 2005-06, 06-07 & 07-08 decided the issue in favour of assessee.
2.2 Before us, learned Authorized Representative pointed out that Tribunal has decided the similar issue in favour of assessee by observing as under:
"4.1. We find that in the present assessment year, no additional facts have been brought by the AO except that the activity undertaken by the assessee is not a manufacturing activity, but only assembling activity. This Tribunal for AY 2005-06 in ITA No.294/Ahd/2009(supra) has taken a view that the assessee has carried out manufacturing activity following the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sunilbhai Kakad in Income Tax Appeal No.1287 of 2010 and other case-laws. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Id.CIT(A). Respectfully following the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench passed for AY 2005-06(supra), we hereby reject this ground of Revenue's appeal."
Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of Revenue. Facts being similar so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A) who has treated acitivity of assessee as manufacturing one and held I T A N o . 2 2 5 2 / A h d / 1 1 A. Y . 2 0 0 8 -0 9 [A C I T v s . M / s . B h a g a t Te x t i le E n g i n e e r s ] Page 4
that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB amounting to Rs.5,55,43,533/-. Same is upheld.
3. In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (N. S. SAINI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 13/03/2015 True Copy S.K.SINHA
आदे श क ूितिल'प अमे'षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राजःव / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु0 / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु0- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 'वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड9 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ।
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free