ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI v. HERITAGE MARBLE P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6516/MUM/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 651619914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACH1588D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6516/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI
Respondent HERITAGE MARBLE P. LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 24-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-09-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-09-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 21-12-2009
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 6516/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF M/S HERITAGE MARBELS PVT.LTD. INCOME TAX- 6(3) MUMBI. VS. PRABHAT COLONY SERVICE ROAD WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY SANTACRUZ(EAST) MUMBAI 400 055 . PAN AAACH1588D (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S. SRIVASTAVA. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-12 MUMBAI DATED 21-10-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE CI T(APPEALS) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF CONVERTING MARBLE STO NE BLOCKS INTO POLISHED SLABS 2 AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE AND THEREBY THE INCOME DERIV ED FROM THIS ACTIVITY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT 1961. 3. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWE VER A LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL INTIMATING THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE. A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1916/MUM/2009 DATED 12 TH JANUARY 2010 HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1916/MUM/2009. WE FIND TH AT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE AFORESAID APPEAL FOLLOWED THE RATIO O F THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO UDAIPUR VS. M/S ARIHANT T ILES AND MARBLES PVT. LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8036 OF 2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : APPLYING THE ABOVE TESTS LAID DOWN BY SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N.C. BUDHARAJA 7 CO. REPORTED IN 204 ITR 412 (SC) TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BLOCKS CONVE RTED INTO POLISHED SLABS AND TILES AFTER UNDERGOING THE PROCESS INDICATED AB OVE CERTAINLY RESULTS IN EMERGENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT COMMODITY. THE ORIG INAL BLOCK DOES NOT REMAIN THE MARBLE BLOCK IT BECOMES A SLAB OR TILE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT ONLY THERE IS MANUFACTURE BUT ALSO AN ACTIVITY WHIC H IS SOMETHING BEYOND MANUFACTURE AND WHICH BRINGS A NEW PRODUCT INTO EXI STENCE AND THEREFORE ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDER TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENTS ASSESSEE DID CONSTITUTE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 80IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 3 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT O F THE SUPREME COURT WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF SEPT. 2010. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 24 TH SEPT. 2010. WAKODE COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR H-BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES