Sonrising Tea Processing Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur v. Addl. CIT,Range-2, Kolhapur

ITA 1023/PUN/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 102324514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AACCS8805J
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1023/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Sonrising Tea Processing Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur
Respondent Addl. CIT,Range-2, Kolhapur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-10-2012
Next Hearing Date 16-10-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 26-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKR JUDICIAL MEMBER SR.NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 130/PN/08 1999-00 DY. CIT CIR. 2 KOLHAPUR SUNRISE TEA PROCESSING PVT. LTD. 29 SHIVAJI PARK KOLHAPUR PAN AACCS 8805 J 2. CO 12/PN/09 IN ITA NO. 130/PN/08 1999-00 SUNRISE TEA PROCESSING PVT. LTD. 29 SHIVAJI PARK KOLHAPUR PAN AACCS 8805 J DY. CIT CIR. 2 KOLHAPUR 3. 131/PN/08 2000-01 DY. CIT CIR. 2 KOLHAPUR SUNRISE TEA PROCESSING PVT. LTD. 29 SHIVAJI PARK KOLHAPUR PAN AACCS 8805 J 4. CO NO. 13/PN/09 IN ITA NO. 131/PN/08 2000-01 SUNRISE TEA PROCESSING PVT. LTD. 29 SHIVAJI PARK KOLHAPUR PAN AACCS 8805 J DY. CIT CIR. 2 KOLHAPUR 5. 9/PN/08 2001-02 SUNRISE TEA PROCESSING PVT. LTD. 29 SHIVAJI PARK KOLHAPUR PAN AACCS 8805 J DY. CIT CIR. 2 KOLHAPUR 6. 10/PN/08 2002-03 -DO- -DO- 7. 11/PN/08 2004-05 -DO- -DO- 8. 222/PN/08 2005-06 -DO- -DO- 9. 1023/PN/09 2006-07 -DO- -DO- 10. 987/PN/10 2007-08 -DO- ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI S.N. INAMDAR AND SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR DEPARTMENT BY : MS. ANN KAPTHUAMA AND SHRI MUKESH VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 16-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: ____ 10-2012 ORDER PER BENCH THE CAPTIONED PROCEEDINGS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSES SEE AND INVOLVE CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES AND THEREFORE THEY H AVE BEEN 2 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. ITA NO. 130/PN/2008 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 1999-00 ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF THE CIT(A) KOLHAPUR DATED 16-10-2007 WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF ORDER DATED 27-12-2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS HEARD AS A LEAD CASE IN DEFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 1999-00 SOLITARY ISSUE RELATES TO ASSE SSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 5 1 283/-. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND IS ENG AGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF BLENDING PROCESSING AND PACKAGING OF T EA IN ITS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING LOCATED AT KOLHAPUR (M AHARASHTRA). WITH RESPECT TO THE PROFITS OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKI NG ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 51 283/-. IN AN ASSESSMENT FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT D ATED 27-12-2006 THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESS EE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED U/S 80IA(2)(III) O F THE ACT. 3. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR A.Y. 1999-00. AS PER THE CIT(A) FOR THE PURPOSES O F SEC. 80IA AS IT STOOD IN THE A.Y. 1999-00 ASSESSEE WAS AN INDUSTR IAL UNDERTAKING AS PER THE MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 80-IA(12)( B) READ WITH THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 33B OF THE ACT WHICH INTER ALI A INCLUDED AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN PROCESSING OF GOODS APART FR OM AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF GOODS. AS PE R THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY OF PROCESSI NG THEREFORE ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC TION 80-IA OF THE ACT 3 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROFITS THEREON WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD FOR A.Y. 1999-00. AGAI NST SUCH A DECISION OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED DR APPEARING FOR THE REVE NUE HAS PRIMARILY REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTI CLE OR THING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 80IA(2)(III) OF THE ACT. THE LE ARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING OR PROD UCING ANY ARTICLE OR THING WAS NOT ELIGIBLE IN TERMS OF SEC. 80IA(2)( III) OF THE ACT AND HE MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA FOR A.Y. 1999-00 MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS PER SEC. 80-IA(12) (B) READ WITH EXPLANATION TO SEC. 33B OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 80-IA( 1) AS IT STOOD IN THE INITIAL YEAR I.E. A.Y. 1999-00 PROVIDED FOR DE DUCTION OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM ANY BUSINESS OF AN INDUSTRIA L UNDERTAKING. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT IN TERMS OF SEC. 80IA(12)(B) OF THE ACT THE MEANING OF EXPRESSI ON INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS GIVEN IN EXPLANATION GIVEN TO SEC. 33B HAS TO BE ADOPTED. IN TERMS OF THE SAID DEFINITION AN INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING INVOLVED IN PROCESSING OF GOODS IS EXPRESSLY INCLUD ED AND IN THIS MANNER ASSESSEES UNDERTAKING FALLS WITHIN THE SCO PE OF SEC. 80IA(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED TH AT WHEN THE EXPRESSION INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING USED IN SUB-SEC TION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA COVERS THE ASSESSEE NO ADDITIONAL CONDITION CAN BE FASTENED 4 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S 80-IA BASED ON SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT. IT HAS B EEN SUBMITTED THAT BY GIVING DUE IMPORTANCE TO THE ADOPTION OF DEFINIT ION OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS GIVEN IN THE EXPLANATIO N TO SECTION 33B OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDED A UNIT INVOLVED IN PROCESSI NG OF GOODS AND RECONCILING THE WORDS USED IN SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT AN INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT UNDER TAKINGS INVOLVED IN PROCESSING OF GOODS WERE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION U/S 80-IA AS IT STOOD FOR THE A.Y. 1999-00. 6. APART FROM THE AFORESAID IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASE IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY TH E DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2012) 137 ITD 377 ( KOL) (SB) INASMUCH AS THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE OF BLENDING OF VARIOUS TEAS IS ADMITTEDLY AN ACTIVITY OF PROCESSIN G. IN SUPPORT IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TARA AGENCIES (2007) 292 ITR 444 (SC) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THAT BLENDING OF TEA AMOUNTS TO PROCESSING. AT THIS POI NT THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING TWO JUDG MENTS OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES VS. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 227 (KER) AND TATA TEA LTD. VS. ACIT (2011) 338 ITR 285 (KER) WHICH HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SU PRA) AND AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE ASSESSEE SET UP A SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKIN G AT KOLHAPUR FOR BLENDING PROCESSING AND PACKING OF TEA. THE ACTIV ITY OF THE 5 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. ASSESSEE COMPRISED OF PURCHASE OF TEA OF DIFFERENT QUALITIES BLENDING THE SAME BY MIXING ONE TYPE WITH ANOTHER T O GIVE DESIRED QUALITY OF TEA UNDER VARIOUS BRANDS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT BLENDING BRINGS OUT A CHANGE IN QUALITY TASTE AND AROMA OF TEA AND ULTIMATELY A NEW PRODUCT EMERGES IN THE FORM OF B LENDED TEA WHICH AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING OR PROCESSING. THIS POSITION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT AS PER TH E CIT(A) THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO PR OCESSING AND IMPLIEDLY ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE ACTIVITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODU CTION. ON THIS ASPECT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION IS JUSTIFIED HAVING R EGARD TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TA RA AGENCIES (SUPRA). THE PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS SIMILAR TO THAT WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TARA AGENCIES (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH ACTIVITY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN T HE AMBIT OF PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE. THE RESPONDENT-ASSE SSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LTD (SUPRA) WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE BUSINESS OF BLENDING AND PACKAGING OF TEA AND EXPORT THEREOF AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCTION O F THE TEA. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LD (SUPRA) IS QUITE MIS-PLACED INASMUCH AS THE POINT BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 1 0A/10B OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF BLENDING PROCESSING OF TEA AND EXPORT THEREOF CAN BE SAID TO BE MANUFACTUR ER OR PRODUCER OF TEA. TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN WE MAY STATE THAT THE ISS UE BEFORE THE 6 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. SPECIAL BENCH WAS TO EXAMINE WHETHER BUSINESS OF BL ENDING AND PROCESSING OF TEA AMOUNTED TO BE MANUFACTURING OR P RODUCING OF TEA FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 10A/10B OF THE ACT. THE S PECIAL BENCH HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 10A/10B OF THE ACT E XPRESSION MANUFACTURE INCLUDED PROCESSING BLENDING AND PAC KAGING OF TEA WHILE UNDER THE COMMON PARLANCE SUCH TYPE OF ACTIVI TY DID NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION. IN COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION IT FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE KER ALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND TATA TEA LTD (SUPRA). THE PENULTIMATE PARA OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BEN CH WHICH READS AS UNDER WE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE HOLD THAT WHEN THE PRODU CTS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEES UNIT IS RECOGNISED AS A 10 0% EOU ARE TEA BAGS TEA IN PACKETS AND TEA IN BULK PA CKS AND THE ASSESSEE IS EXCLUSIVELY ENGAGED IN BLENDING AND PACKING OF TEA FOR EXPORT MAY NOT BE MANUFACTURER O R PRODUCER OF ANY OTHER ARTICLE OR THING IN COMMON PARLANCE. HOWEVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10A 10AA AND 10B WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD MANUFACTURE AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(R) OF SEZ A CT EXIM POLICY FOOD ADULTERATION RULES 1955 TEA (MARKETING) CONTROL ORDER 2003 ETC. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURE AS PER SEC. 2(R) OF THE SEZ ACT 2005 IS INCORPORATED IN SEC. 10AA OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 10-2-2006. HONBLE KERALA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) HAD HELD SUCH AMENDMENT IN SEC. 10AA TO BE OF CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. THE DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURE UNDER THE SEZ ACT EXIM POLICY FOOD ADULTERATION RULES AND TEA (MARKETING) CONTROL ACT IS MUCH WIDER THAN WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE TERM MANUFACTURE UNDER THE COMMON PARLANCE AND IT INCLUDES PROCESSING BLENDING PACKAGING ETC. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND TATA TEA LTD (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF BLENDING OF TEA. SIMILARLY IN OUR VIEW THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS ENGAGED IN THE VERY SAME ACTIVITY I.E. BLENDING PACKING AN D EXPORT OF TEA IN THE FREE TRADE ZONE SHALL ALSO BE ENTITLED TO ENJOY TAX EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10A OF THE ACT. BRINGS OUT THE CLARITY. QUITE CLEARLY THE PRONOUN CEMENT IN THE CASE OF MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LTD (SUPRA) BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRNAR INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND TATA 7 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. TEA LTD (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTIONS 10A 10AA AND 10B OF THE ACT FOR THE REASONS STATED THER EIN. IN FACT THE SPECIAL BENCH ITSELF NOTED THAT THE SAME DOES NOT C HANGE THE MEANING OF THE TERMS MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION I N THE CONTEXT OF IMPUGNED PROCESSING OF BLENDING OF TEA IN THE COM MON PARLANCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ISSUE IS NOT IN THE CONTEXT O F SECTIONS 10A 10AA OR 10B OF THE ACT WHICH WAS THE CASE BEFORE T HE SPECIAL BENCH. THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NO T HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. NOW WE MAY REFER TO THE STAND OF THE CIT(A) WHI CH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE S INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AMOUNTS TO PROCESSING AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. NO DO UBT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE IMPUGNED ACTIVITY I .E. BLENDING OF TEA AMOUNTS TO PROCESSING IS QUITE JUSTIFIED INASMUC H AS THE SAME IS ALSO IN LINE WITH THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TARA AGENCIES (SUPRA) WHEREIN SIMILAR A CTIVITY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE AMOUNTING TO PROCESSING AND NOT PRODU CTION OR MANUFACTURE. SO HOWEVER THE MOOT QUESTION IS A S TO WHETHER THE SAME WOULD ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 8 0-IA OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD FOR A.Y. 1999-00 WHICH IS THE FIRST YE AR OF ASSESSEES CLAIM AS IT IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET UP. IN THIS CONTEXT WE MAY REFER TO SEC. 80IA AS IT STOOD FOR A.Y. 1999-00 WHICH READS AS U NDER: 80-IA. DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ETC. IN CERTAIN CASES (1 ) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM ANY BUSINESS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR A HOTEL OR OPERATION OF A SHIP OR DEVELOPING MAINTAINING AND OPERATING ANY INFRASTRU CTURE FACILITY OR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OR PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES 8 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. WHETHER BASIC OR CELLULAR INCLUDING RADIO PAGING DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICE OR NETWORK OF TRUNKING A ND ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE SERVICES OR CONSTRUCTIO N AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PROJECTS OR OPERATING AN INDUSTRIAL PARK OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OR REFININ G OF MINERAL OIL IN THE NORTH EASTERN REGION OR IN ANY P ART OF INDIA ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1997 (SUCH BUSINESS BEING HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSIN ESS) TO WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIES THERE SHALL IN ACCORDAN CE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION BE A LLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5 ) AND FOR SUCH NUMBER OF ASSESSMENT YEARS AS IS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (6). 9. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA IS THE MAIN PROVIS ION WHICH PRESCRIBES FOR DEDUCTION OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY BUSINESS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS D EFINED IN SEC. 80- IA(12)(B) OF THE ACT. SECTION 80-IA(12)(B) PRESCRIB ES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80-IA THE EXPRESSION INDUSTR IAL UNDERTAKING SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN THE EXPLAN ATION TO SEC. 33B OF THE ACT. THE SAID EXPLANATION READS AS UNDER: EXPLANATION IN THIS SECTION INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAK ING MEANS ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF GENERATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICI TY OR ANY OTHER FORM OF POWER OR IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS OR IN THE MANUFACTURE OR PROCESSING OF GOODS OR IN MINING . 10. NOW THE CASE SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT BEING AN UNDERTAKING INVOLVED IN PROCESSING OF GOODS IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS UNDERSTOOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SE CTION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA READ WITH CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (12) OF S EC. 8-IA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE PROFIT AN D GAINS OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF S UB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA AND IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESCRIBED DE DUCTION. 11. AT THIS STAGE WE MAY REFER TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA WHICH CONTAINS CLAUSES (I) TO (V) INTER-ALIA CONTA INING CONDITIONS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SO AS 9 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. TO SEEK DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA CLEARLY PRESCRIBES THAT THE SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH FULFILLS ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESC RIBED THEREIN VIZ. THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSES(I) TO (V) THERE OF. ONE SUCH CONDITION CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80IA MANDATES THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SHOULD MA NUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING. THEREFORE IN TERM S OF CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IA AN INDUSTRIAL UNDE RTAKING OUGHT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING IN ORDE R TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. OSTENSIBLY AS NOT ICED EARLIER THE ACTIVITY OF BLENDING OF TEA UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE-INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODU CTION AND THEREFORE ASSESSEES INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING VIOLAT ES THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SE C. 80-IA OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AS IT QUALIFIES TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING REFERRED TO IN SU B-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA READ WITH CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (12) OF S EC. 80-IA IT SHOULD BE HELD ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE FUNCTION OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 8 0-IA IS NOT TO WHITTLE DOWN THE EFFECT OF SUB-SECTION (1) BUT IS M ERELY TO DEFINE THE PERIOD OF EXEMPTION DEPENDING ON THE COMMENCEMENT O F PRODUCTION AND TO ENSURE THAT THE UNDERTAKING IS NEW AND NOT F ORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS AND THAT IT DOES NOT PRODUCE ARTICLES SPECIFIED IN ELEVENTH SCHEDULE. IT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT THAT THE WORDS MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES USED IN CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA IS ONLY IN T HE ABOVE CONTEXT. IT IS FURTHER SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT THAT IF THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO RESTRICT DEDUCTION ONLY TO SUCH INDUSTRIAL U NDERTAKING WHICH MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ARTICLE OR THING THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA ITSE LF. 10 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PONDERED OVER THE PLEA SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80IA LAYS DOWN THE CONDITIONS WHICH ARE TO BE FULFI LLED BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SO AS TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT O F DEDUCTION ENVISAGED IN SEC. 80-IA. CLAUSES (I) TO (V) THEREOF CONTAIN CONDITIONS VIZ. THAT IT IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RE-CO NSTRUCTION; THAT IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY P REVIOUSLY USED; THAT IT MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ANY ARTICLE OR THI NG NOT BEING AN ARTICLE SPECIFIED IN ELEVENTH SCHEDULE UNLESS IT IS A SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ETC. THE POINT TO BE NOTED THAT SUCH CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARILY TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY A N INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SO AS TO TAKE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS VIOLATIVE OF CLAUSE (III) OF SEC. 80-IA(2) OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT IT QUALIFIES TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS REFERRED TO IN SE C. 80-IA(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT CANNOT IMPOSE A FURTHER CONDITION SO AS TO DEFEAT ITS CLAI M FOR EXEMPTION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80- IA OF THE ACT ITSELF CONTAINS EXPRESSION TO WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIES.. . THE AFORESAID EXPRESSION QUALIFIES THE PRESENCE OF THE EXPRESSION AND BUSINESS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT IT IS NOT ENOUGH THA T THE UNIT SHOULD FALL IN THE EXPRESSION INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT ALONE RAT HER SEC. 80-IA(1) ITSELF PRESCRIBES THAT THE EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE T O AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING TO WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIES WHICH REFLECTS THE IMPORT OF THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE CONDITIONS 11 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT HAS TO BE READ HARMONIOUSLY AND THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT CASE CL AUSE (III) OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA CANNOT BE IGNORED WHILE E XAMINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. ON A CLEAR INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT AS IT STOO D FOR THE A.Y. 1999- 00 THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY AMOUNTS TO PROCESSING O NLY AND IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO EITHER MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION AND SINCE THE TERM PROCESSING HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN SEC. 80-IA ON ACCOUNT OF CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80-IA OF TH E ACT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) IN OUR VIEW CLEARLY FELL IN ERROR WHILE ALLOWING ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 1999-00. 13. ACCORDINGLY WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENYING THE DEDUCTIO N U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IN ITA NO. 130/PN/2008 FOR A.Y. 1999-00 IS ALLOWED. 14. COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 131/PN/2008 FOR A.Y. 2000-01 FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE FOR A.Y. 1999-00. FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING GIVEN IN PRECEDIN G PARAGRAPHS WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1999-00 WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 15. NOW WE MAY TAKE C.O. NO. 12/PN/2009 PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DAT ED 16-10-2007 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 1999-00. IN ITS C.O THE ONLY PL EA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENI NG OF ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SEC. 147/148 O F THE ACT. 12 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. 16. ON THIS ASPECT ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REO PENING THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING SEC. 147/148 OF THE ACT ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 WAS COMPLETED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER FULLY SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE AS SESSEES ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA/80-IB OF THE ACT AND BASED ON SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT ANY DIFFERENT MATERIA L COMING TO HIS POSSESSION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SEC. 147/148 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES REOPEN ING OF ASSESSMENT AMOUNTED TO CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH WA S IMPERMISSIBLE. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) A ND ALSO NOTICED THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS C ONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS TAKEN UP FOR REVISION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II KOLHAPUR (IN SHO RT COMMISSIONER) BY INVOKING SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THIS BACKGROUND THERE WAS JUSTIFIABLE INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION BY THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGAR D IS CONTAINED IN PARA 18 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. ACCORDING TO T HE EXISTING PROVISIONS ALL THE RETURNS HAVE TO BE PRO CESSED U/S 143(1) AND IF ANY TAX OR INTEREST IS DUE AN IN TIMATION IS SENT SPECIFYING THE TAX DEMAND OR IF ANY REFUND IS DUE IT IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER PROVI DED THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN SHALL BE DEEMED T O BE AN INTIMATION U/S 143(1) IF NEITHER ANY SUM IS P AYABLE NOR REFUNDABLE. ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE OAO HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A WRONG CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN HE MAY RESORT TO ASSESSMENT OF THE INCO ME U/S 143(3). IN THE CASE THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS ALREADY EXPIRED THE AO CAN RESORT T O A NOTICE U/S 148 TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SEC. 148 MENTIONS THE WORD ASSESS AS WELL AS REASSESS OR RE-COMPUTATION OF INCOME . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RETURN AS ACCEPT ED U/S 13 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. 143(1) IN GOOD FAITH. WHILE ACCEPTING THE RETURNS U/S 143(1) THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THE AO TO MAKE ANY CHANGE OR ADJUSTMENT TO THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT THEREFORE CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROCES SING OF A RETURN U/S 143(1) SHOWS AN IMPLICIT ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE RETURN. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS CHANGE OF OPINION IN ISS UING NOTICE U/S 148 IS MISPLACED. THE OTHER CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE SIMILAR DEDUCTION HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE LAT ER YEAR I.E. 2003-04 IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) THE AO WAS OBLIGED TO FOLLOW HIS OWN DECISION TAKEN FOR AN EARLIER YEAR. THERE IS NO SUCH OBLIGATION SINCE EA CH YEAR HAS TO BE VIEWED SEPARATELY. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) FOR A.Y. 2003-04 WAS TAK EN UP FOR REVISION U/S 263 BY THE LD. CIT-II KOLHAPUR. THIS COULD CONSTITUTE INFORMATION FOR THE AO TO RE-EXAMI NE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. 17. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT T HERE WERE NO FRESH FACTS AND DETAILS WHICH CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE INVOKING OF SEC. 147 O F THE ACT IN THE INSTANT YEAR. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT PRIOR TO ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA/80-IB OF THE ACT W AS SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION IN A.Y. 2003-04 AND UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES INVOKING OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT YEAR AMOUNTED TO CHANGE OF OPINION. AS PER THE LEARNED COUNSEL TH ERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE MATERIAL OR IRRATIONAL PLEA SO AS TO RE QUIRE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVOKE SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CON TEXT RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIVEST PTE LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME -TAX AND OTHERS (2012) 250 CTR (BOM) 15. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE U/S 14 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. 148 OF THE ACT THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUME NTS RAISED BEFORE US IS THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH MATERIAL OR A RATIONAL BELIEF THAT CERTAIN INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF HEA RING RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIVEST PTE LTD. (SUPRA) TO POINT OUT THA T IN THE ABSENCE OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR A RATIONAL BELIEF ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. IT WAS PUT ACROSS TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION COULD BE EXAMINED ONLY ON PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO SEC. 147 OF THE ACT A COPY OF WHICH WAS NOT ON RECORD. HOWEVER THE POINT SOUGHT TO BE MADE WAS THAT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATE D 30-3-2006 FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 20 03-04 WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB WAS UPHELD. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A BELIEF FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THAT ANY INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-I A OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 WAS TAKEN UP F OR REVISION U/S 263 BY THE CIT-II KOLHAPUR AND THEREFORE IT WOUL D CONSTITUTE INFORMATION FOR ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-VISIT THE C LAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80-IA FOR EARLIER YEARS. IT IS FOR TH IS REASON THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NEGATED THE PROPOSITION CHALLENGING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION T HE OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE CIT( A) IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE. OSTENSIBLY THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDIN GS FOR A.Y. 2003- 04 U/S 263 HAS BEEN INITIATED BY THE CIT-II KOLHAPU R ON 15-11-2006 WHEREAS THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE INSTAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR 15 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. WAS ISSUED ON 30-3-2006. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) MIS DIRECTED HIMSELF IN OBSERVING THAT THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 WOULD CONSTIT UTE INFORMATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 20. IF THE TEST OF WHETHER THERE EXISTED ANY TANGIB LE MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DATE OF RECORDING OF R EASONS U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS TO BE EXAMINED IT WOULD BE IN THE FITN ESS OF THINGS THAT DUE REFERENCE BE MADE TO THE REASONS SO RECORDED AN D OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CLEARLY SUCH AN APPROACH IS CONSPICUOUS BY ABSENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) KOLHAPUR ON THIS ASPECT AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO RE-VISIT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 30-3-20 06. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE CIT(A) SHALL ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN ADJUDICATE ON THIS ASPECT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 21. IN THE RESULT THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITS CROSS OBJECTION NO. 13/PN/2009 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2000-01 . FOLLOWING THE REASONS GIVEN WHILE DEALING WITH CO NO. 12/PN/2009 THE SAME IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 2002-03 2004- 05 2005-06 2006-07 AND 2007-08 FILED BY THE ASSES SEE THE ISSUE 16 ITA NO 130 131 9 TO 11 222 1023 & 987/PN/09 SUNRISE TEA PR.PVT.LTD. A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 ETC. RELATES TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE PROFITS FROM BUSINESS OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF BLENDING PROCESSING AND PACKAGING OF TEA IN ITS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE COND ITIONS IN TERMS OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 1999-00 IN PRECEDING PARA GRAPHS ALSO HOLDS GOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF CLAIM MADE U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOLLOWING THE PARITY O F REASONING IN ITA NO. 130/PN/2008 FOR A.Y. 1999-00 WE HOLD THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT FO R THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. . 24. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED WHILE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND THE C ROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED 31 ST OCTOBER 2012 ANKAM COPY TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT (A) KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT- KOLHAPUR 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A BENCH I.T. A.T. PUNE. BY ORDER SR. P.S ITAT PUNE BENCH PUNE. .