The ACIT,(OSD)Circle-5,, Ahmedabad v. Print Vision Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad

ITA 924/AHD/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 92420514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACP9194M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 924/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 1 month(s)
Appellant The ACIT,(OSD)Circle-5,, Ahmedabad
Respondent Print Vision Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 10-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 10-04-2015
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 29-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD 00 ! ' #$ % & BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO.924/AHD/2011 % ) *)/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ACIT (OSD) CIRCLE-5 AHMEDABAD. VS PRINT VISION P. LTD PRINT VISION HOUSE OPP. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AMBAWADI MARKET AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAACP 9194 M C.O. NO.106/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.924/AHD/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 PRINT VISION P. LTD PRINT VISION HOUSE OPP. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AMBAWADI MARKET AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAACP 9194 M VS ACIT (OSD) CIRCLE-5 AHMEDABAD. + / (APPELLANT) -. + / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADV SR. D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY: NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 10/04/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/04/2015 // O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OB JECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI AHMEDABAD DATED 24.01.2011. ITA NO.924/AHD/2011 & CO NO.106/AHD/2011 PRINT VISION P LTD FOR AY 2005-06 2 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE ON AC COUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB FROM RS.15 87 972/- TO RS.85 950/- 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A.O. OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB O F RS.15 87 972/- WHICH IS 30% ON THE PROFIT OF RS.52 93 239/-. HE O BSERVED THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0IB OF THE ACT ONE OF THE VITAL CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INCOME TA X ACT IS THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING ANY AR TICLE OR THING NOT BEING ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE LIST IN THE ELEVENTH SCHEDULE OR OPERATES ONE OR MORE COLD STORAGE PLANT OR PLANT S IN ANY PART OF INDIA. ON VERIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORDS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY TYPE OF MANUFACTURIN G ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN JOB WORK OF PAPER AND FORMS SHEET PRINTING AS WELL AS INCOME IS DERIVED THROUGH JOB WORK FOR VARI OUS PARTIES AND THE SAID ACTIVITIES DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF MA NUFACTURING. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RESPONSIBL E FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.15 87 972/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE ALSO OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED OTHER INCOME CONSISTING OF FDI INTERES T INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND CASH DISCOUNT SALE OF SCAN PROCESS ETC . AGGREGATING TO RS.2 86 498/- WHICH IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80IB. HENCE TO THE EXTENT OF 30% OF THIS INCOME THE DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AMOUNTING TO RS.85 950/- WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. H E OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ENTIRE CLAIM IS DISALLOWED NO SEPARATE D ISALLOWANCE WAS BEING MADE ON THIS ISSUE. 4. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ALLOWANCE U NDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT TO RS.85 950/- AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.15 87 972/-. ITA NO.924/AHD/2011 & CO NO.106/AHD/2011 PRINT VISION P LTD FOR AY 2005-06 3 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF A.O. WHEREAS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT A SSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AN D PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENG AGED IN JOB WORK FOR OTHERS AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION THAT ITS ACTIVITY WAS MANUFACTURING/PRODUCTION WAS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE B Y THE A.O. BY OBSERVING THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS ONE OF JOB- WORK. AS SEEN FROM THE APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS A.OS FINDIN G IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. EXCISE DEPARTMENTS ACTION SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION THAT APPELLANTS ACTIVITY IS ONE OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PAY MENT OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS.1 19 398/- ON 31.03.2008 HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER AS CONTENDED B Y THE APPELLANT THIS IS THE TENTH YEAR OF CLAIMING DEDUCT ION U/S. 80IB AND IN THE EARLIER YEARS NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. THEREFORE I HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IB IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FACTS AND LAW. 2.2.1 HOWEVER I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. TH AT OTHER INCOME ENUMERATED AT PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER (REPRODUCED ABOVE) TOTALING TO RS.2 86 498/- IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. SAID INCOME CAN NOT BE HE LD TO BE DERIVED FROM BUSINESS. LAW IS WELL SETTLED ON TH E ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE APEX COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF LIBERT Y INDIA VS. CIT (317 ITR 218). 2.2.2 IN VIEW OF THIS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON OTHER INCOME OF RS.2 86 498/- IS UPHELD. BALANCE ITA NO.924/AHD/2011 & CO NO.106/AHD/2011 PRINT VISION P LTD FOR AY 2005-06 4 DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY. 7. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SIMPLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O. AND COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE I N THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ARTICLE OR THING IN ITS OW N ACCOUNT OR WHEN IT MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ON JOB WORK BASIS FOR MANU FACTURING CHARGES OR JOB WORK CHARGES. IN BOTH THE CIRCUMSTANCES MA CHINE AND MANPOWER ARE EMPLOYED ON REGULAR BASIS. THUS WE D O NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY TH E SAME IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 9. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : (A) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS WEL L CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. (B) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ALSO INTERPRETED THE LEGAL PROVISIONS CORRECTLY IN LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 10. READING OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPPORT O F THE ORDER OF CIT(A). AS THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THEREFORE THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.924/AHD/2011 & CO NO.106/AHD/2011 PRINT VISION P LTD FOR AY 2005-06 5 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON WEDNESDAY THE 29 TH OF APRIL 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/04/2015 PBN/* / 0 -%$12 32*$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! () / THE CIT(A)-XI AHMEDABAD 5. $%& '' )*++ / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. & - . / GUARD FILE. / ' / BY ORDER 4/ !5 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD