ITO 17(3)(2), MUMBAI v. FIXOPLAST INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

ITA 4641/MUM/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 464119914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN NAAAF7399B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4641/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ITO 17(3)(2), MUMBAI
Respondent FIXOPLAST INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 14-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 06-09-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 03-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. AND SHRI V. DUR GA RAO J.M. ITA NO. 4641 4642 & 4643/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 2005-06 & 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(2) APPELLANT R.NO. 611 6 TH FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL MUMBAI 400 012. VS. M/S FIXOPLAST INDUSTRIES RESPONDENT SHOP NO. 9 GROUND FLOOR NAKHODA BUILDING M.A. ROAD MUMBAI 400 008. (PAN AAAF7399B) APPELLANT BY : MR. SHANTAM BOSE RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 08/09/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/09/ 2011 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO J.M.: THESE THREE APPEALS PERTAINING TO ONE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-29 MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 2005-06 & 2006-07. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS I NVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREF ORE A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE. HOWEVER WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND ON MERITS OF THE C ASES. ITA NO.4641 4642 & 4643 /MUM/2010 M/S FIXOPLAST INDUSTRIES 2 3. TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS WE REFER TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE IN AY 2004-05 AND A COMMON GROUND RAISED IN THESE APPEALS READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IB OF THE ACT 1961 THOUGH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN T HAT SECTION HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. NIL ON 01/11/2004 AFTER CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 17 720/-. S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB THE AO THERE FORE DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A ) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 80IB AND IN FACT IN DETAILED ORDER MY PREDECESSOR HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN AY 2001-02 VIDE APPELLATE ORDER NO. CIT(A)XXVII/ITO17(3)(2)/IT-161/07-08. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 5. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CO VERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCHE S MUMBAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2001-02 APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO 296/MUM/09 VIDE ORDER DATED 13 TH AUGUST 2010. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON RE CORD. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2001-02 HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE U/S 80- IA/80IB MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE NUMBER OF WOR KERS WORKING ARE LESS THAN 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE SILVASA DT. 13/11/07 AND ACCORDING TO THAT LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ITO SHOWS THAT OFFICE STAFF AS 01 NUMBER OF WORKERS AT 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES C ENTRE GAVE A FINDING THAT DURING THE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED PAYMENT OF WAGES AT RS. 2 94 785/- AND THE PAYMENT OF ITA NO.4641 4642 & 4643 /MUM/2010 M/S FIXOPLAST INDUSTRIES 3 SALARIES AT RS. 63 500/-. THESE TWO PAYMENTS ARE BA SED ON THE BASIS OF COMPUTER ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESS EE BEING MONTHLY WAGES/SALARIES TO ITS WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES . THE MONTHLY WAGE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE COM PUTER REGISTER HAS SHOWN TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT 12 IN RESPECT OF WAGE PAYMENTS. DETAILS OF SALARY HAS BEEN MAINTAINE D SEPARATELY BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CA TEGORICAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(ZA) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER PERUSING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THE REFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . 6. SINCE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF AY 2001-02 WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF COO RDINATE BENCH IN AY 2001-02 AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE CONFIRM THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IN THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. AY 20 04-05 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 7. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 14 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 KV ITA NO.4641 4642 & 4643 /MUM/2010 M/S FIXOPLAST INDUSTRIES 4 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE F BENCH I.T .A.T. MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI.