ACIT, Chandigarh v. M/s Ansysco Sunrise Complex, Chandigarh

ITA 532/CHANDI/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 53221514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AACFA7228C
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 532/CHANDI/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Chandigarh
Respondent M/s Ansysco Sunrise Complex, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2012
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 10-05-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH 'B' CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.532 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) THE A.C.I.T. VS. M/S ANSYSCO SUNRISE COMPLEX CIRCLE 1(1) SCO 74-75 SECTOR 8-C CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AACFA7228C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL BHANDARI DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DA TED 29.02.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I(C) OF RS. 1 88 90 0201- WHICH INCLUDES THE INCOME FROM JO B WORK OF RS. 59 05 93 5/- AND OTHER INCOME OF RS. 6 65 532/-. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RELIEF ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF E NTIRE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN RE SPECT OF JOB WORK INCOME' OF RS. 59 05 935/-(GROSS) 2 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RELIEF ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF E NTIRE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN RE SPECT OF 'OTHER INCOME' OF RS. 6 65 532/- ACCRUED TO THE ASS ESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM WRITING BACK OF CREDIT B ALANCES OF PARTIES INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED AND INCOME FRO M SALE OF SCRAP. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED ONLY IN 'MIXING O F CHEMICALS AND PACKING THEREOF. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE 'S OWN CASE IN M/S ANSYSCO VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.883/CHD/2006 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ORDER DATED 17.9.2009 AND ALSO IN ITA NO. 1 20/CHD/2011 AND ITA NO.255/CHD/2011 BEING CROSS APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ORDER DATED 21 .6.2011. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE OR DERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS TO B E DISMISSED. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGES 29 34 AND 38 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBJECTED TO ALLOWAB ILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT PER SE AND ALSO ON JO B WORK AND OTHER INCOME. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COOLENT AND PVC 3 COMPOUND AND CAR CARE PRODUCTS. THE MANUFACTURING U NIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED AT PARWANOO HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME EARNED FROM CARRYING ON ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND A LSO FROM JOB WORK. THIS THE FOURTH YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING TH E ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE AC T IN RELATION TO THE INCOME EARNED FROM CARRYING ON ITS MANUFACTURING AC TIVITIES. HOWEVER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS ON ACCOUNT OF U NDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON JOB WORK WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.883/CHD/2006 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 17.9.2 009 UNDER WHICH THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WA S CONSIDERED IN PARAS 11 AND 12 AND VIDE PARA 13 IT WAS HELD THAT T HE ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO DGX AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING AND THEREFORE THE RESULTANT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO VIDE PARA 6 OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLARIFIED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO INCOME EARNED FROM UNDERTAKING JOB WORK FOR SUPPLYING DGX CARTRIDGE WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE. FURTHER THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.120/CHD/2011 AND ITA NO.255/CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE VIDE ORDER DATED 21.6.2011 HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT BOTH ON JOB WORK CHARGES AND PART OF OTH ER INCOME. 4 6. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM CARRYING ON ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. IN VIEW OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ALLOWED FROM YEAR TO YEAR WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE S TAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT YEAR IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY C HANGE IN THE FACT SITUATION. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. 7. THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE UNDER SECTION 80I C OF THE ACT IS DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE ON THE PROFITS EARNED FROM THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON JOB WORK BASIS. FOLLOWING TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE EARLIER YEARS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 8. THE THIRD ASPECT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECT ION 80IC OF THE ACT IS IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME TOTALING RS.6 65 532/-. THE CIT (APPEALS) VIDE PARA 5.1 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON INCOME FROM WRITING BACK THE CRE DIT BALANCES OF THE PARTIES INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED AND INCOME FROM S ALE OF SCRAP. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE V IS--VIS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON THE AFORESAID INCO ME HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT 5 (APPEALS). IN VIEW THEREOF GROUND NOS.1 TO 4 RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF JULY 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JULY 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH