M/s. Team Ferro Alloys Pvt.Ltd.,, Vapi v. The ACIT., Vapi Circle,, Vapi

ITA 2585/AHD/2007 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 258520514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAACT8925A
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2585/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Team Ferro Alloys Pvt.Ltd.,, Vapi
Respondent The ACIT., Vapi Circle,, Vapi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 18-01-2012
Next Hearing Date 18-01-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 11-06-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P.JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2585 / AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. TEAM FERRO ALLOYS P. LTD. SURVEY NO.357/2/2/1 & 357/2/3/7 BEHIND DADRA GARDEN VILLAGE DADRA 396230 UT OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI VS. ACIT VAPI CIRCLE AJITH NAGAR CHALA VAPI I.T.A.NO.17/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ACIT VAPI CIRCLE VAPI VS. M/S. TEAM FERRO ALLOYS P. LTD. SURVEY NO.357/2/2/1 & 357/2/3/7 BEHIND DADRA GARDEN VILLAGE DADRA 396230 UT OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI PAN/GIR NO. : AAACT8925A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI M K PATEL ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 18.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.03.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JM:- THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE COME UP BEFORE US ARISING F ORM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) VALSAD RESPECTIVELY DATED 3 RD JAN 2007 AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION AND DATE D29.09.2008 AGAINST LEVY OF PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C).THESE TWO APPEALS ARE CONSOLIDATED AND HEREBY DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 2 A. I.T.A.NO. 2585/AHD/2007: 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US IS GROU NDS NO.3 & 4 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 3. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CS4E AND INTERPRETATION OF LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB OF THE ACT FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS FORMED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES AND IS CONTRARY TO THE F ACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETE D 4. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF TH E LD. A.O. NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLANT U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. REST OF THE GROUNDS I.E. GROUNDS NO.1 2 5 & 6 ARE EITHER GENERAL IN NATURE OR DEPEND UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE ABOVE REPR ODUCED MAIN GROUNDS. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS AS EMERGED FORM THE CORRESPONDIN G ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 28.03.2006 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF VARIOUS KINDS OF FER RO ALLOYS. ONE OF THE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS LOCATED IN THE UNI ON TERRITORY OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI A BACKWARD AREA SPECIFIED IN VIII S CHEDULE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION OF RS.99 35 608/- U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 . IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ACTIVITIES STARTED AT DADAR DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED AND THEREAFTER IT WA S OBSERVED AS UNDER: 1) THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAN UFACTURE OF FERRO ALLOYS. IT WAS ORIGINALLY CARRYING ON THE SA ME BUSINESS FORM D-03 S.NO.221/1/ZERO TAX INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DADRA UT OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI. I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 3 2) THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ITS ACTIVITY FROM THE ABO VE MENTIONED PREMISES FORM ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. IT CARRIED ON ITS BUSINESS FROM TH E ABOVE PREMISES TILL 29.03.2004. 3) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB @ 100% F ROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 FROM THIS PREMISES. 4) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE CAR RIED ON ITS BUSINESS FROM THIS PREMISES TILL 29.03.204 AND CLAI MED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB @ 30%. 5) THEREAFTER W.E.F. 30.03.2004 THE ASSESSEE SHIF TED ITS BUSINESS FORM THE ZERO TAX INDUSTRIAL ESTATE TO SUR VEY NO.357/2/2/1 & 357/2/3/2 VILLAGE DADRA UT OF DADR A & NAGAR HAVELI. 6) AT THE NEW PLACE THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED A BUSI NESS PROFIT OF RS.78 282/- FOR TWO DAYS I.E. FROM 30.03.2004 TO 31 .03.2004. 7) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE DECLARE D BUSINESS PROFITS OF RS.99 51 818/- AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IB. 5. THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. WAS THAT THE DEDUCTI ON IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE UNIT HAS NOT BEEN FORMED BY SP LITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE COMPANY HAD AVAILED BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U /S 80IB IN RESPECT OF AN OLD UNIT SITUATED AT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DADRA NOD -03. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON THE SAID OLD UNIT WAS CLOSED DOWN. AFTER NARRATING FEW CASE LAWS HE HAS CONCLUDED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY SHIFTED ITS BUSINESS FORM ONE PLACE TO ANOTH ER PLACE. HE HAS REFERRED THAT SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ISSUED CERTI FICATE FOR CHANGE OF LOCATION OF THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY FORM D-03/S NO.221/1/0 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DADRA TO SURVEY NO.357 /2/1 AT VILLAGE DADRA. RESULTANTLY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB WAS DISALLOWED. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE A.O. BY ASSIGNING FOLLO WING REASONS:- I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 4 THE APPELLANT STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AT UNIT AT S. NO. 357/2/2/1 & 357/2/32 BEHIND DADRA GARDEN DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI W.E.F. 29.03.2004. THE APPELLANT W: ORIGINAL LY CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS FROM D-03 S. NO. 221/1 ZEROX TA X INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DADRA U. T. OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI AND CO MMENCED ITS ACTIVITY FRO ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 199 9-2000 AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 801 @100% FROM A.Y. 1999-200 0 TO A.Y. 2003-2004 AND @30% FOR A.Y. 2004-2005 FRO THIS PREM ISE. THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT HAS CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINE SS FROM THE SAID PREMISE W.E.F. 29.03.2004 AND SHIFTED ITS BUSINESS FROM D-03 S. NO. 221/1 ZEROX TAX INDUSTRIAL ESTATE TO S. NO. 35 7/2/2/1 & 357/2/32. THUS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS OBSERVED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THE APPELLANT HAS AVAILED BENEFIT OF DEDUC TION U/S. 80IB FOR THE FIRST 5 YEARS @100% AND THERE AFTER CLOSED DOWN ITS OLD UNIT TO START A NEW UNIT TO ENJOY BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION @100 % FOR ANOTHER 5 YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS MUST NECESSA RILY INVOLVE THE CONCEPT THAT THE ORIGINAL BUSINESS IS NOT TO CEASE FUNCTIONING AND ITS IDENTITY IS NOT TO BE LOST AND ABANDONED AND THE UN DERTAKING MUST CARRY ON THE SAME BUSINESS. THE OLD BUSINESS IS REC ONSTRUCTED SO AS TO GIVE BIRTH TO A NEW* * UNIT. THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY SHIFTED ITS MANUFACTURING UNIT FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER PLACE. 6. FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE LD. A.R. MR. M K PATEL ADVOCATE APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING TWO D ECISIONS:- I) I.T.A.NO. 1636/AHD/2009 2441/AHD/2007 2442/AHD /2007 AND 1637/AHD/2009 ITO VAPI VS COMPUTER FORCE DAMAN ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH B. II) I.T.A.NO. 1496 & 2586/AHD/2007 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS ACIT ORDER DATED 22.10.2010 OF ITAT AHMEDABAD B ENCH D. 7. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LD. D.R. MR. SAMIR TEKRIWAL SR. DR APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW. 8. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NOW THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH. IN I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 5 THIS REGARD THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE ABO UT THE NEW UNIT ARE AS FOLLOWS:- INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CONSISTS OF LAND BUILDING PLANT AND MACHINERY AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS. IN THIS REGARD W WOULD LIKE TO BRING BEFORE YOUR HONOR THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH ARE AS UNDER. A. IN OUR CASE WE HAVE PURCHASED A NEW PIECE OF LAND O N WHICH NEW BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED ON. B. WE HAVE INSTALLED ENTIRELY NEW SET OF PLANT AND MAC HINERIES. A STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF VARIOUS PLANT AND MA CHINERIES INSTALLED ARE ENCLOSED. C. WE HAVE EMPLOYED MORE THIN 20 WORKERS. A STATE MENT SHOWING LIST OF WORKERS EMPLOYED DURING THE YEAR IS ENCLOSED. . D. OUR INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS LOCATED IN A BACKW ARD AREAS SPECIFIED IN THE EIGHTH SCHEDULE TO THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS WE SATISFY ALL INC CONDITIONS AS REQUIRED IN S ECTION 80-1B. FURTHER MORE WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING BEFORE YOUR H ONOR THAT.. A. THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF ANY OF THE ASSETS FROM THE OLD UNIT TO NEW UNIT B. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF PLANT MACHINERY OR ANY OTHER MANUFACTURING FACILITIES FROM THE OLD UNIT TO NEW UNIT. C. ALL PLANTS AND MACHINERIES INSTALLED IN THE IND USTRIAL UNDERTAKING ARE NEW. D. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF BUSINESS FROM THE OLD UNIT TO NEW UNIT. E. WE HAVE OBTAINED ALL THE REQUIRED LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES FROM VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LIKE. CENTRAL EXCISE S ALES TAX DIC POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND FACTORY LICENSE ETC. AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RESPECTIVE LEGISLATION FOR SETTING UP A NEW UNI T. COPY OF THE SAME IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT IN OUR CASE NONE OF THE B USINESS HAS BEEN BROKEN UP AND ALSO THAT NO PORTION OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF ANY OTHER UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN BROKEN UP SO AS TO FORM OUR UNDERTAKING. 9. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PLACED O N RECORD WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE UNIT IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN FORMED EITHER BY SPLITTING UP OR I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 6 BY RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS. THERE WAS A NEW I NDEPENDENT LOCATION WHERE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS STATED TO BE INST ALLED. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE SAME BUSINESS OR DIFFERENT BUS INESS WAS OF NO CONSIDERATION AS IT WAS DONE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES. RATHER THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE EXISTENCE OF NEW UNIT AS A RECONSTRUCTION OF OLD UNIT. IN THE CASE OF M/ S. COMPUTER FORCE (SUPRA) WHEREIN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED TERM USED SP LITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE A.O. HAS MOLDED THE FACTS AND STATED THAT THE OLD UNIT WAS CLOSED DOWN CONSEQUENT LY GIVEN BIRTH TO A NEW UNIT. THIS REASONING OF THE A.O. CANNOT BE APP ROVED BECAUSE THE SAME IS MERELY PRESUMPTION THAT THE OLD UNIT HAD GI VEN BIRTH TO A NEW UNIT. WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ABBAS NA BI SHAIKH (SUPRA). RELEVANT PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS REPRODUCED B ELOW: IT WOULD BE A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION IF AT THE SAM E PLACE WHERE THE ALREADY EXISTING UNIT IS FUNCTIONING NEW/ADDITIONAL MACHINERY/PLANT ARE INSTALLED OR NEW CAPITOL IS INFUSED OR CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS AND ALTERATIONS IN THE PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING THE PR ODUCT IS CARRIED OUT AND THERE IS A CONTINUITY OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS IN THE SAME INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS BUT WHERE AT A NEW LOC ATION INDEPENDENT OF THE EARLIER EXISTING UNIT NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY ARE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED NEW CAPITAL IS INVESTE D THEN IT WOULD BE A CASE OF SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT EVEN THOUGH F OR CARRYING OUT THE SAME BUSINESS. THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE LIES IN CHANGE IN LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FORM OF FACTORY BUILDING AND PLANT AND MACHINERY WHETHER ASSESSEE CARRIES OUT THE SAME BUSINESS OR DIFFERENT BUSINESS IS NOT AN ESSEN TIAL INGREDIENT TO HOLD IT IS A RECONSTRUCTION OR NOT. THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING IT AS A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTIO N MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO CARRY ON THE SAME BUSINESS IN THE NEW UNIT ALSO. ON THE BASIS THAT OLD UNIT DID NOT FUNCTION O R IT HAS STOPPED ACTIVITIES MAY GIVE RISE TO AN IMPRESSION THAT THE NEW UNIT IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. BU T EARNING ON THE SAME BUSINESS IN THE NEW UNIT IS NOT SUFFICIENT AT ITS OWN TO HOLD THAT THE NEW UNIT IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS A LREADY IN I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 7 EXISTENCE UNLESS LOCATION IS THE SAME AND THERE IS NO INSTALLATION OF NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE OLD UNIT MAY STOP FUNC TIONING IMMEDIATELY OR AFTER SOMETIME. IF OLD UNIT RUNS PAR ALLEL FOR SOME TIME AND THEREAFTER IT STOP FUNCTIONING THEN IT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. ONE CANNOT SAY THAT IF OLD UNIT STO PS FUNCTIONING IMMEDIATELY ON THE START OF NEW UNIT IT WOULD BE A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION AND IF OLD UNIT STOPS FUNCTIONING AF TER A YEAR OR SO AFTER THE NEW UNIT STARTS FUNCTIONING IT WILL NOT BE A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. FU RTHER IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ID. DR IS ACCEPTED THEN SEVERAL UNI TS WHERE SAME BUSINESS IS CARRIED OUT WOULD ALWAYS BE TREATED AS RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND THUS DENYING THE BENEFIT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO THE TAX PAYER. THEREFORE CA RRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS IN THE NEW UNIT OR STOPPAGE OF BUSINE SS IN THE OLD UNIT CANNOT BE A CRITERIA TO HOLD THAT IT IS A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. 9.1 AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS INVOLVED WE HEREBY DIRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED BEFORE US IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 10. SO FAR AS GROUNDS NO.5 & 6 ARE CONCERNED THE S AME DO NOT SURVIVE HENCE HEREBY DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. B. I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 :- 12. GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.37 54 316/-. 13. LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY ASSIGNING FO LLOWING REASONS: I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB BASED ON THE CONTENTION THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE A PPELLANT IS FORMED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN E XISTENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT FORTH ANY FACT PO INTING TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/ FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 8 INCOME. THE DEDUCTION IS FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOM E WHICH HAS BEEN COMPUTED AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RE TURN OF INCOME. ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OR MISS TATEMENT OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED ALL PARTICULARS OF INCOME ITS SOURCE AND NATURE WHICH IS NOT IS DISPUTE. THE DISA LLOWANCE IS OWING TO A DIFFERENT VIEW REGARDING THE ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THERE ARE NO REPORTED PRE CEDENT OR JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF HIS VIEW. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACT UAL MATRIX OF THE CASE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF D EDUCTION U/S. 80-IB ON TECHNICAL GROUND DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEA LMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN THIS APPEAL. 14. THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE HERE BY APPROVED BY US MOREOVER WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB HEREINABOVE THEREFORE THE REASONS FOR INITIATION OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY DO NOT SURVIVE ANY MORE. 15. IN THE RESULT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AR E HEREBY DISMISSED AND THE REVENUE/S APPEAL DISMISSED. 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I. T.A.NO. 2585/AHD/2007 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES A PPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 IS DISMISSED. 17. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (B. P. JAIN) (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SP ORDER PRONOUNCED BY NOMINATED MEMBER SD./- SD./- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY)AM (MKS)JM I.T.A.NO.2585 /AHD/2007 I.T.A.NO. 17/AHD/2009 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION20/3 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER22/3.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30/3 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.30/3 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30/ 3/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .