Varsha Singh , Jaipur vs Department Of Income Tax

Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM

vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 303/JP/2012 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10

Assistant Commissioner of cuke Varsha Singh, Income Tax, Vs. Thaltara, Sirsi Road, Circle-3, Jaipur. Khatipura, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGWPS 7481 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Neena Jeph (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Sogani (C.A.)

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 26/05/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 29/05/2015

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated

17/01/2012 passed by the learned CIT (A)-I, Jaipur for A.Y. 2009-10.

The sole ground of appeal is reproduced as under:-

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing deduction U/s 10BA when the assessee does not fulfill the conditions laid down under section 10BA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."

2 ITA 303/JP/2012_ ACIT Vs. Varsha Singh

2. The sole ground of appeal is against allowing deduction U/s 10BA

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The assessee filed her

return on 28/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 17,94,740/-. The

case was scrutinized U/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee is engaged in

the business of manufacturing and exports of artistic handicrafts items

mainly made of wood in the name and style of M/s Prakrati Enterprises,

which is proprietary concern of assessee. From the net profit earned

during the year t Rs. 1,98,29,904/-, the assessee had claimed deduction

U/s 10BA of the Act at Rs. 1,82,27,594/-. The Assessing Officer gave

reasonable opportunity of being heard on claiming of deduction U/s

10BA, which was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 20/09/2010,

which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page Nos. 1 and

2 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer further asked to give

the details of export order and shipment/export dates stating therein

export orders number, date or orders, description of items to be

exported, quantity and rates, which has been submitted by the

assessee. The ld Assessing Officer again reproduced the submission of

assessee on page Nos. 2 to 5. The ld Assessing Officer further held that

the assessee could not clarify of the manufacturing activity was carried

out which could be treated as manufacturing to fulfill the condition laid

down U/s 10BA(a) of the Act. The assessee had been carrying on the 3 ITA 303/JP/2012_ ACIT Vs. Varsha Singh

same business for the past several years and all the machinery and

plant were used by it for other purposes in the previous years. The

assessee had used this plant and machinery which were installed in

May, 2000 i.e. period related to A.Y. 2001-02 and the assessee had

claimed deduction U/s 80 HHC and U/s 80IB in previous years for which

the same plant and machinery was used. The concern of the assessee is

not a new concern. The customers, management, machinery etc. were

the same, hence the condition laid down U/s 10BA (b) & (c) are not

satisfied. Therefore, the Assessing Officer not allowed deduction U/s

10BA of the Act on Rs. 1,82,27,594/-.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the

assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who had allowed the

appeal by observing as under:-

"I have carefully perused the order of the A.O. and submissions of the Ar. In view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the appellant's own case for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08 as well as the decision of the CIT(A)-I in appeal for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 the issue is decided in favour of the appellant. There is no change in the facts of the case in the year under consideration. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, the A.O. is directed to allow exemption claimed by the appellant U/s 10BA of IT Act.

4 ITA 303/JP/2012_ ACIT Vs. Varsha Singh

The only ground of appeal is thus decided in favour of the appellant." "

4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. fairly

accepted that in this case the Hon'ble ITAT dismissed the revenue's

appeal on deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 10BA of the Act. At

the outset, the ld AR for the assessee drawn our attention on HON'ble

ITAT, Jaipur Bench's decision in ITA No. 733/JP/2011 A.Y. 2008-09

order dated 30/01/2012 wherein identical issue has been decided by

the Hon'ble Bench in favour of the assessee and revenue's appeal has

been dismissed. In this year also, the facts and circumstances of the

case are identical to A.Y. 2008-09, therefore he prayed to dismiss the

revenue's appeal.

5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and

perused the material available on record. The facts and circumstances

of the case are identical for A.Y. 2008-09. The coordinate Bench in

assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 had decided as under:-

"5. Detailed submissions were filed before ld. CIT (A) and it was submitted that in case of assessee itself, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of ld. CIT (A) for assessment years 2005-06 to 06-07 in ITA Nos. 663/JP/2008, 926/JP/2008, 791/JP/2009 and 349/JP/2010. It was submitted that for assessment year 2007-08 also the appeal of the 5 ITA 303/JP/2012_ ACIT Vs. Varsha Singh

department has been dismissed by the Tribunal. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record i.e. the appellate order by Tribunal, the ld. CIT (A) found that on identical facts the appeal of the department has been dismissed by the Tribunal Accordingly he allowed the appeal of the assessee.

6. After considering the orders of the AO and ld. CIT (A) we find no infirmity in the finding of ld. CIT (A) who has allowed the appeal of the assessee following the order of Tribunal for assessment years 2004-05 to 07-08. Copies of the orders are placed on record. In view of the consistency, we confirm the order of ld. CIT (A) as Tribunal has allowed the identical issue for earlier years in favour of the assessee."

By respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench on

identical issue, we dismiss the revenue's appeal.

6. In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/05/2015.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ (R.P.Tolani) (T.R. Meena) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29th May, 2015 *Ranjan

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur 6 ITA 303/JP/2012_ ACIT Vs. Varsha Singh

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Varsha Singh, Jaipur.

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 303/JP/2012)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar