DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI v. PRINCE PLASTIC INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3533/MUM/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 353319914 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3533/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI
Respondent PRINCE PLASTIC INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 23-02-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 29-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD AM AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO JM I.T.A. NO. 3533/MUM/09 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-8(2) ROOM NO. 216-A AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. VS. M/S. PRINCE PLASTICS INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. PRINCE HOUSE 51/3 MAROL CO-OP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE M.V.ROAD ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 053 PAN: AACP 3346H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :: SHRI S.M. KESHKAMAT RESPONDENT BY :: SHRI MRUGAKSHI K. JOSHI O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD (AM): IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUND: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB TO THE ASS ESSEE SINCE THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE TWELFTH YEAR SINCE THE INCEPTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WAS DISALLO WED BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS THE TWELFTH YEAR OF ITS OPERATION. H OWEVER IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT DEDUCTION WAS RELATABLE TO VARIOUS UNITS SEPARATELY AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT UNIT NOS. I II III IV AND V ARE SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL U NDERTAKINGS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER VID E PARAS 1.4 AND 1.5. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y AND WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A ND IN THIS REGARD THE ORDER PLACED BEFORE US IN ITA NO. 2160/M/2008 DATED 28 TH MAY 2009 SHOWS THAT EVEN IN EARLIER YEAR I.E. A.Y . 2003-04 THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN THAT UNIT NOS. I I I III IV AND V WERE SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL 2 UNDERTAKINGS AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IA/IB. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) WE DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE RE VENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 201 0. SD. SD. (V. DURGA RAO) (T.R. SOOD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR MUMBAI DATED THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DCIT-8(2) MUMBAI 3. THE CIT-VIII MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-VIII MUMBAI 5. THE DR C BENCH MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T.MUMBAI