Assessee qualifies for tax deductions under Sections 80-I and 80-IA. Tribunal rules in favor.

The Tribunal held that the processes undertaken by the assessee constituted production and manufacturing, making them eligible for deductions under Sections 80-I and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed the assessee's claim for all three assessment years in question. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, with the order pronounced in open court on 13/05/2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the disallowance of deduction under Sections 80-I and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the reassessment proceedings.
3. Genuineness and completeness of the certificate in Form 10CCB.
4. Determination of whether the process undertaken by the assessee constitutes "manufacture" or "production."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustaining the Disallowance of Deduction under Sections 80-I and 80-IA:
The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Sections 80-I and 80-IA. The assessee, an HUF, operates two grinding units for soapstone and claimed deductions for these units. The AO initially allowed the deduction but later reopened the assessment, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premier Construction Co., which held that grinding of soapstone does not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal, however, found that the process undertaken by the assessee, which involves multiple stages such as segregation, cleaning, crushing, and blending to produce soapstone powder of different grades, constitutes production. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Arihant Tile and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., which recognized similar processes as manufacturing or production.

2. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings:
The reassessment was initiated based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which the AO believed applied to the assessee's case. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not dispute the actual activities carried out by the assessee but only questioned whether these activities fell within the ambit of production or manufacture. The Tribunal emphasized that once the AO had allowed the claim in the original assessment, reopening the assessment on the same facts without any new material was not justified.

3. Genuineness and Completeness of the Certificate in Form 10CCB:
The CIT(A) denied the deduction partly because the certificate in Form 10CCB was incomplete, lacking the computation of the amount of deduction. The Tribunal found this to be a minor error on the part of the auditor and noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had disputed the correctness of the computation of the deduction as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that such a technical objection should not be a ground for denying the deduction, especially when the books of accounts were audited and the computation was not questioned.

4. Determination of Whether the Process Undertaken by the Assessee Constitutes "Manufacture" or "Production":
The Tribunal analyzed the processes undertaken by the assessee, which included breaking large soapstone boulders into smaller pieces, removing impurities, washing, and crushing to produce soapstone powder of different grades. The Tribunal found that these processes resulted in a distinct and marketable product different from the raw material. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Arihant Tile and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., which held that similar processes constituted manufacturing or production. The Tribunal also noted that the soapstone powder produced by the assessee was used by various industries, indicating that the final product was distinct and had added marketable value.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the processes undertaken by the assessee constituted production and manufacturing, making the assessee eligible for deductions under Sections 80-I and 80-IA. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the assessee's claim for all three assessment years in question. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 13/05/2019.

---