A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-2,, JAMMU v. SH. DEEPAK KUMAR HANDA, JAMMU

ITA 336/ASR/2017 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 33620914 RSA 2017
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 336/ASR/2017
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-2,, JAMMU
Respondent SH. DEEPAK KUMAR HANDA, JAMMU
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 22-11-2017
First Hearing Date 22-11-2017
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 31-05-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T.S. KAPOOR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.336(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013- 14 THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE-2 RAIL HEAD COMPLEX PANAMA CHOWK JAMMU. VS. SH. DEEKPAK KUMAR HANDA PROP M/S BAIBHAV ORNAMENTS H.NO.91 WARD NO.12 HANUMAN GALI KACHI CHAWNI JAMMU. PAN:AANPH-5157Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. S.S. KNAWAL (LD. DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA (LD. ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 22.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30.11.2017 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 19.01.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.328/15-16 BY THE LD. CIT(A) JAMM U FOR ASST. YEAR: 2013-14. 2. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW AND FACT IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT IS ALR EADY IN APPEAL ON THE SAME ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT AMRITSAR IN CASE OF M/S PADMA ORNAMENTS FOR THE A.Y.2012-13. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW AND FACT IN IGNORING THE SUPREME COURTS ORDER IN CASE OF TUNGABHADRA INDUST RIES LTD. V/S CTO[1960] II STC 827 WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE I N THIS CASE. ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 2 WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CASE OF PUNEET SEHDEV V/S ITO WARD-2( 2) JAMMU IS STILL PENDING WITH ITAT AMRITSAR IN WHICH SIMILAR I SSUE IS INVOLVED. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW & FACT IN IGNORING THE APPEAL IN CASE OF SMT. SHIFALI SEHDEV V/S ITO WARD- 2(3) JAMMU FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 WHICH IS STILL PENDING WITH HIM. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N OF RS.61 11 967/- U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 CLA IMING THAT THE CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO ORNAMENTS QUALIFY FOR GETTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM AS TO HOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MENTIONING MANY REASONS WAS PLEASED TO HELD THAT THE CONVERTING OF 24 KT GOLD INT O 22KT GOLD DOES NOT AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE AND SUCH AS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT 1961. ACCORDINGLY THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.61 11 967/- WAS DISALLOWED AND SUBJECTED TO TAX. 4. FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CO NSIDERING THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS AND PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT D ELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE IN THE ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 3 INSTANT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT PASSE D BY ITAT AT AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN CONNECTION WI TH THE ASST. YEAR:2012-13 ON DATED 24.10.2017 VIDE ITA NO.254(ASR )/2016. THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. LET US PERUSE T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED HIS JUD GMENT WHILE RELYING UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS SPECIFICALLY SHRI SANJAY JAIN PROP. M/S. GANESH JEWELERS JAMMU IN I.T.A. NO. 407 (ASR.)/201 2 AS WELL AS M/S LOVELESH JAIN AND ORS. 204 TAXMAN 134 AND PUNEET SACHDEVA IN APPEAL NO. 253/10-11 DATED 29/02/2012 DECIDED BY MUMBAI HIGH COURT. THE DETERMINATION PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AMOUNTING TO RS.61 11 967/- THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE CONVERSION OF 24 KT GOLD INTO 22KT GOLD OR NAMENT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. THE AO HAS ALSO CITED DECISIONS OF VARIOU S COURTS INCLUDING THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. O N THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT BEFORE ME THAT IN S IMILAR CASE HON'BLE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH AMRITS AR IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SHRI SANJAY JAIN PROP. M /S. GANESH JEWELERS JAMMU IN I.T.A. NO. 407 (ASR.)/2012 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED RE LEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARI OUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVINCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT (A) GIVEN AT PAGE 3 & 4 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ' I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE A ND FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS TO SUCCEED. EVEN BEFORE THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURING WAS NOT ON THE STATUTE THE DIRECT DEC ISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI AS REFERRED ABOVE HELD THAT CONVERSION OF GOLD INTO ORNAMENTS A MOUNTED TO MANUFACTURE.' IN THE CASE OF M/S LOVELESH JAIN AND ORS. 204 ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 4 TAXMAN 134 THE ISSUE WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER:- 'THE ACTIVITY FOR CONVERTING GOLD BRICKS BISCUITS OR BARS INTO JEWELLERY AMOUNTS TO 'PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF A NEW ARTICLE. THE GOLD SILVER OR PLATINIUM IN BAR BISCUITS OR BRICK FORM IS CONVERTED BY MANUAL LABOUR AND BY THE USE OF IMPLEMENTS / TOOLS OR BY MACHINERY CULMINATING INT O AN ENTIRELY NEW ARTICLE OR THING CALLED JEWELLERY OR ORNAMENTS. JEWELLERY IS A WEARABLE ITEM AND IS USED BY BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. TH IS PROCESS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO ABOVE IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 WHILE ADVERTING TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE CASE OF SHAS HI KANT MITTAL. JEWELLERY/ ORNAMENTS IN COMMON PARLANCE OR IN COMME RCIAL TERMS AS DISTINCT IDENTITY TREATED AS NEW ARTICLE AND NOT THE SAME AS RAW OR STANDARD GOLD IN THE FORM OF BRICKS BISCUITS OR BARS. AS A RESULT OF THE SAID PROCESSING A COMMERCI ALLY DIFFERENT SALEABLE PRODUCT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. JEWELLERY HA S A DISTINCTIVE NAME CHARACTER AND USE. IT CAN NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY. THE ACTIVITY OF THE RESP ONDENT ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO 'MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION AND T HEREFORE QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A/ 10B.' ALSO IN THE CASE OF M/S TRIBUWAN DASS BHIMJEE JHAV ERI 110TTJ 942 THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB - ALLOWABILITY - INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR BRANCH OFFICE - ASSESSEE'S UNIT AT HYDERABAD IS GET TING THE JEWELLERY MADE FROM KARIGARS AT MUMBAI UNDER THE SU PERVISION AND CONTROL OF ITS EMPLOYEES WITH THE HELP OF MUMBA I OFFICE (HEAD OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE) - OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE HYDERABAD UNIT CANNOT BE IGNORED MERELY BECAUSE THE MUMBAI OF FICE FACILITATING ITS ACTIVITIES - THEREFORE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB IN RESPECT OF HYDERABAD UNIT.' IN THE CASE OF PUNEET SACHDEVA IN APPEAL NO. 253/10 -11 DATED 29/02/2012 I HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE CONVERS ION OF GOLD INTO GOLD ORNAMENTS WAS A MANUFACTURING ACTIVI TY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI REFERRED TO AS ABOVE. FURTHER THE DEFINITION OF 'MANUFACTURE' IS INSERTE D W.E.F 01.04.2009 IN SECTION 2 (24BA) OF I. T. ACT AS UNDE R:- ' MANUFACTURE' WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS MEAN S A CHANGE IN NON LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING : ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 5 A) RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICL E OR THING INTO ANEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING H AVING A DIFFERENT NAME CHARACTER AND USE OR; B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJEC T OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INT EGRAL STRUCTURE. THE CONDITIONS ARE ALTERNATE TO EACH OTHER AND ON S ATISFYING ANY ONE OF THE TWO THE ACTIVITY WOULE BE TREATED AS 'MANUFACTURE'. IN THE PRESENT CASE 2 (29BA ) (A) OF I.T.A ACT IS C LEARLY SATISFIED AS THERE IS TRANSFORMATION OF 24K GOLD INTO NEW AND DI STINCT OBJECT AS ORNAMENT WHICH HAS DIFFERENT NAME CHARACTER IN THE USAGE. THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF 'MA NUFACTURE'. IN THE PRESENT CASE 2(29BA ) (A) OF I. T. ACT IS CLEAR LY SATISFIED AS THERE IS TRANSFORMATION OF 24K GOLD INTO NEW AND DI STINCT OBJECT AS ORNAMENT WHICH HAS DIFFERENT NAME CHARACTER IN AND USAGE. THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF 'MA NUFACTURE'. HIS RELIANCE IS ON CASE LAWS WHICH ARE NOT DIRECT ON TH E ISSUE WHEREAS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AN D HON'BLE ITAT MUMABI ARE DIRECT ON THE ISSUE WHICH ARE RELI ED BY ME IN CASE OF PUNEET SACHDEV IN APPEAL NO. 253/10-11 DATE D 29/02/2012 . FOLLOWING THE ABOVE I HOLD THAT ASSES SEE WAS ENGAGED IN 'MANUFACTURE' AND WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ION U/S. 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I AM NOT GOING INTO THE ISSUE OF CONSISTENCY AS RAISED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE ASS ESSEE AS THE MATTER STANDS DECIDED ON MERITS.GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 S TANDS DISPOSED'. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REAS ONED ORDER PASSED BY LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS DEC IDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS WE LL AS ITAT MUMBAI BENCH. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORD ER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE.' FURTHE R HON'BLE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH AMRITSAR AGAIN IN THE CASE OF ACIT CIRCLE- 2 JAMMU VS. M/S PADMA ORNAMENTS JAIN BAZAR JAMMU VIDE ITS ORDER ITA NO. 138 (ASR.)/2015 DATED 10/12/2015 FOR AY 2009-10 HAS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER IN THE CASE OF ITO JAMMU VS. SANJAY JAIN JAMMU (SUPRA). ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 6 SINCE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS ALREADY BEE N DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRIT SAR IN THE TWO CASES CITED ABOVE AND THERE IS NO ADVERSE ORDER AFTER THAT I ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF ITA T AND DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/ S 80 IB OF THE ACT. 5.1 WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH WITH THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CO- ORDINATION BENCH OF ITAT AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF A SSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE ASST. YEAR:2012-13 VIDE ITA NO.254(ASR)/2016 DECIDED ON 2 4 TH OCTOBER 2017. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BE LOW. 6. WE FIND THAT ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE I S AS TO WHETHER THE CONVERSION OF 24K GOLD INTO 22K GOLD JEWELLERY AMOU NTS TO MANUFACTURE AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE EARLIER ORDERS OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY JAIN (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE SIM ILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE BENCH IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE SIMILAR ISS UE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SH. LOKESH HANDA IN ITA NO.332(ASR)/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 10. 12.2015 WHEREIN THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF RE VENUE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.407(ASR)/2012 DATED 19.0 2.20913 IN THE CASE OF ITO WARDS 2(3) JAMMU VS. SH. SANJAY JA IN JAMMU (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE AFORE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS DECI SIONS RENDERED BY THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HO NBLE HIGH COURTS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E AND FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS TO SUCCEED. EVEN BEFORE THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURING WAS NOT ON THE STATUTE THE DIRECT DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HO NBLE ITAT MUMBAI AS REFERRED ABOVE HELD THAT CONVERSIO N OF GOLD INTO ORNAMENTS AMOUNTED TO MANUFACTURE. IN THE C ASE OF M/S. LOVELESH JAIN AND OTHERS 204 TAXMAN 134 TH E ISSUE ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 7 WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT AS UNDER: THE ACTIVITY FOR CONVERTING GOLD BRICKS BISCUITS OR BARS INTO JEWELLERY AMOUNTS TO PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF A NEW ARTICLE. THE GOLD SILVER OR PLATINUM IN BAR BISC UITS OR BRICK FORM IS CONVERTED BY MANUAL LABOUR AND BY THE USE OF IMPLEMENTS/TOOLS OR BY MACHINERY CULMINATING INTO AN ENTIRELY NEW ARTICLE/THING CALLED JEWELLERY OR ORNA MENTS. JEWELLERY IS A WEARABLE ITEM AND IS USED BY BOTH ME N AND WOMEN. THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO ABOVE IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 WHILE ADVERTING TO THE FACTUAL MATRI X IN THE CASE OF SHASHI KANT MITTAL.JEWELLERY/ORNAMENTS IN C OMMON PARLANCE OR IN COMMERCIAL TERMS HAS A DISTINCT IDEN TITY TREATED AS A NEW ARTICLE AND NOT THE SAME AS RAW OR STANDARD GOLD IN THE FORM OF BRICKS BISCUITS OR BA RS. AS A RESULT OF THE SAID PROCESSING A COMMERCIALLY DIFFER ENT SALEABLE PRODUCT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. JEWELLERY HA S A DISTINCTIVE NAME CHARACTER AND USE. IT CAN NO LONG ER BE REGARDED AS THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY HAS SEPARATE CO NSUMERS AND IS A NEW COMMERCIAL COMMODITY. THE ACTIVITY OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR PROD UCTION AND THEREFORE QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A/10B . 4.1. ALSO IN THE CASE OF M/S. TRIBHUWAN DASS BHIMJ EE JHAVERI 110 TTJ 942 THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI HAS HELD AS UNDER: DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ALLOW ABILITY INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING OR BRANCH OFFICE-ASSESSEES UNIT AT HYDERABAD IS GE TTING THE JEWELLERY MADE FROM KARIGARS AT MUMBAI UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF ITS EMPLOYEES WITH THE H ELP OF MUMBAI OFFICE (HEAD OFFICE) OF THE ASSESSEE- OPERA TIONS CARRIED ON BY THE HYDERABAD UNIT CANNOT BE IGNORED MERELY BECAUSE THE MUMBAI OFFICE IS FACILITATING ITS ACTIVITIES THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IN RESPECT OF HYDERABAD UNIT. 4.2. IN THE CASE OF PUNEET SACHDEVA IN APPEAL NO.25 3/10-11 DATED 29.02.2012 I HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE CONVERS ION OF GOLD INTO GOLD ORNAMENTS WAS MANUFACTURING RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ITAT MUMBA I AS REFERRED ABOVE. 4.3. FURTHER THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACURE IS IN SERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2009 IN SECTION 2(24BA) OF I.T.ACT AS UNDER: MANUFACTURE WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS MEANS A CHANGE IN NON-LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING:- ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 8 A) RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICL E OR THING INTO A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME CHARACTER AND USE OR B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJEC T OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITIO N OR INTEGRAL STRUCTURE. 4.4. THE CONDITIONS ARE ALTERNATE TO EACH OTHER AND ON S ATISFYING ANY ONE OF THE TWO THE ACTIVITY WOULD BE TREATED AS MANUFACTURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE 2(29BA)(A) OF I. T. ACT IS CLEARLY SATISFIED AS THERE IS TRANSFORMATION OF24 K GOLD INTO NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT AS ORNAMENT WHICH HAS DIFFE RENT NAME CHARACTER IN AND USAGE. 4.5. THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITI ON OF MANUFACTURE. HIS RELIANCE IS ON CASE LAWS WHICH A RE NOT DIRECT ON THE ISSUE WHEREAS THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI ARE DIRECT ON T HE ISSUE WHICH ARE RELIED BY ME IN CASE OF PUNEET SACHDEV IN APPEAL NO.253/10-11 DATED 29.02.2012. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE I HOLD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF I.T.ACT. I AM NOT GOING INTO THE ISSUE OF CONSISTENCY AS RAISED BY THE LD. REPRE SENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE AS THE MATTER STANDS DECIDED ON MERITS. GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 STANDS DISCLOSED. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS ITAT MUMBAI BENCH. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE. 6. THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HA VE BEEN EITHER UPSET OR EVEN STAYED ON APPEAL. THE FACTS T HEREIN HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN STATED TO BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE BEFO RE US. 7. THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO WARD-2(3) JAMMU VS. SANJAY JAIN JAMMU (SUPRA) WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE & TAKEN IN G ROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO GENERAL SALES TAX AND ARE DISTING UISHABLE FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREAS THE CASE LAWS RELIED ITA NO.336 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR: 2013-14 9 ON BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECE DENTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THER EFORE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5.3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AS THE ITAT BEN CH AT AMRITSAR IN ITA NO.254(ASR)/2016 RELEVANT TO THE ASST . YEAR:2012-13 VIDE ITS ORDER 24.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF H AVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ISSUES IN HAND AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE CASE LAWS ON RECORD AND SPECIFICA LLY AS THE MATTER IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER BY THIS B ENCH ITSELF. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IMPROPRIETY AND ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPA RTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:30.11.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A) (4) THE CIT (5) THE SR DR I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER