TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-11 is an independent manufacturing unit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB of the I.T. Act and allowed the deduction u/s. 80IB(4) on profit of said unit. 3. In C.O Nos. 27 & 28 same ground raised which read as under:- "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Respondent, is bad in law. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment having been reopened after the lapse of period of limitation prescribed under the statute, the assessment order was required to be. quashed as nonest and void in the eye of law. 3. Without prejudice, the Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated the assessment was reopened on a mere change of opinion and consequently the assessment order was not sustainable in the eye of law as there was no income that had escaped assessment. 4. Without prejudice, the Commissioner (A) ought to have followed the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 231 ITR 200 in the case of Coca Cola Export Corporation etc., vs. ITO & Anr. and ought to have held that the assessment was bad in law and consequently quashed the same." 4 In C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs were interconnected to facilitate the transfer of machinery. Further on inspection, it was found that the machinery was shifted to Unit-I building. The building which houses the Unit-i was extended breadth wise to accommodate the machinery of Unit-TI. The roof was also extended. The assessee contends that the Unit-Il was started on a different plot only. When a different plot was purchased for the purpose of starting the Unit-Il, what is the necessity to extend the plot on which already Unit-I was existing? The assessee has extended the plot breadth wise to put in extra machinery in that extended area and function the undertaking. At first site of the building, it is difficult to find out that there are two units operating in the building. Only during the enquiry which was conducted, the Director had explained that there are two units operating inside the said premises/building. The industrial undertaking should not have been formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence for claiming deduction u/s 801B. Unless somebody points out that there are two units inside the building, it is impossible for anyone to find out that there are two undertakings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are formed by splitting up or by reconstruction. The new industrial undertaking should be new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from the existing business. There must be a new emergence of a physically separate industrial unit which may exist on its own as a viable unit. During inspection, the Director was asked to produce the license obtained for both the units. The Director Mr. Yatin Kakodkar expressed his inability as no license was obtained for Unit-IL "Q.9. Do you have any separate licence from the Ministry of Small Scale Industries? Ans: No. We are not having any licence but we are registered as 'Apex packing Products (P) Ltd' with the Department of Industries, Govt of Goa. Q.1O, Do you have any licence obtained for Unit-Il? Ans: No, no licence was obtained for Unit-II." The deduction u/s. 801B(4) is available only to an industrial undertaking which is recognized by the Ministry of Small Scale Industries. This ministry gives the recognition/certificate of license to start an industrial undertaking. In the absence of a license for an industrial undertaking, it is not right to call it an undertaking at all. If it is not an undertaking, there i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission filed by the appellant. The AO denied the existence of independent Unit-TI on the basis that the two plots are co-existent, no separate license from Govt. authorities were obtained, there is common roof and also that there is common management. The AO also concluded that Unit-TI cannot function independently and therefore, Unit-IT is nothing, but an extension of Unit- I. On the other hand, the appellant contended that Unit- I and Unit- IT came into existence at different times, have manufacturing facility for two completely different products having different clientele. The machineries are totally different and one cannot he used to manufacture the product of other. They are capable of functioning independently and in fact, they are functioning independently. Having common management and few other common facilities, do not negate the independent identities of both units. Therefore, in view of the facts of this case, in my opinion, Unit-Il is an independent manufactv4xtg unit, constructed by investing a much higher amount compared* to Unit- I, which is eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 801B (4). The AO is therefore directed to allow the deduction u/s. 801B(4) to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee. When the Direction was queried in this regard, the requirement of license he has applied that no such requirement. The Unit -II is totally different project manufacturing by Unit -I. Secondly Unit-II has satisfied all the conditions provided u/s 80IB of the Act. Therefore, which is mere change of the opinion the assessment made was not required to be reopened u/s. 147 of the Act as per Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France reported in 264 ITR 566(SC): CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (Del(. (F.B.) 256 ITR 1.The learned AR submitted that the Assessment Year 2002-03 being the initial year, the matter was deliberated upon in detail and even in the order u/s. 264 of the Act the Commissioner of Income Tax has agreed the existence of two undertaking eligible for 80IB exemption. 8. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Looking to facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessment was reopened by issuing the notice u/s. 148 which read as under. "The assessee filed Return of Income on 30. 10. 2005 declaring total income of Rs. 2,18,733/ after claiming deduction u/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee company is not license from the Ministry of Small Scale Industries for Unit-II & thus it is only an extension of the already existing Unit-I which was claimed deduction u/s. 80IB. For the Assessment Year 05-06, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB, therefore, the Assessing Officer have reasoned to believe that the income chargeable to tax under A.Y. 05-06 has been escaped. The assessee has required to the show cause notice which read as under:- October 31, 2011 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Panaji Aaykar Bhawa Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 Sub: Notice u/s.148 of the Act for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act -Assessment Year: 2004-05-M/s. Apex Packing Products Pvt Ltd., Kundaim, Goa Please refer to the letter dt. 17.10.2011 along with the enclosed reasons recorded. At the outset we wish to submit that the reopening was bad in law in that it was barred by time. It may kindly be appreciated that the assessee has filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year disclosing all the primary materials and the assessment stood concluded on 8.12.2006. In the return filed originally....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terials and evidence furnished. In the circumstances, on mere change of opinion the assessment made was not required to be reopened u/s. 147 of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France reported in 264 ITR 566 (SC); CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (Del) (F.B.) 256 ITR 1 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 320 ITR561. Thus, apart the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had also held in the case of Asian Paints Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 308 ITR 195(Bom) and Prashant S.Joshi Vs. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Born) that the reopening on mere change of opinion is bad in law. In fact for the assessment year 2002-03 being the initial year, the matter was deliberated upon in detail and even in the order u/s.264 of the Act the Commissioner of Income-tax has agreed the existence of two undertaking eligible for 80-lB exemption. In the circumstances, the reopening of assessment while referred to the findings for the assessment year 2008-09 is without basis especially when the very findings for the assessment year 2008-09 is under challenge before the CIT(A) who is yet to hear the matter. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561. Therefore, we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06 is barred by limitation. In the result, we allow the C.O. Nos. 27 & 28 for Assessment Year 2004-05 and we hold that the assessment has been reopened after the lapse of period of limitation, therefore, both assessments are quashed and declare void. In the result, both C.Os. are allowed. 10. We deal C.O. No. 29 & 30 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 which goes to the root of the case. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee was having second Unit and he was claiming deduction u/s. 80IB (4) on this Unit the assessee claimed deduction of the Unit-II in A.Y. 2002-03 and in Assessment Year 2002-03 the Assessing Officer has accepted that assessee was having two Units to separate Unit manufacturing of paper wrappers and film wrappers respectively. This fact has been admitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax which is the order u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act which is on page 40 of the paper book 1(1). From above it is in the notice of the Department that assessee was having separate unit No.2. The assessee was allotted separa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with Central Excise Department and was allotted ECC No. 2001050952 for Unit No.1 and for Unit -II. The assessee was allotted Registration No. AACCA3426BXM 001 in Form RC dated 28.12.2001. The assessee has also obtained the certificate of Registration, before the concerned Sales Tax Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, the Unit-2 is separate Industrial undertaking therefore, the Assessing Officer has confirmed and it is merely change of opinion the assessment cannot be reopened. 11. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income for relevant Assessment Year on 27.09.2008 declaring total income. The Assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing of (i) wax coated wrappers for Parle Biscuits and (ii) laminated plastic wrappers under two separate industrial undertaking viz., Unit-1 and Unit-II. In Unit-I, it manufactured was coated wrappers whereas in Unit-II, it manufactured laminated plastic wrappers. Unit-II was established in 2002-03 was the first Assessment Year of the undertaking. The assessee claimed the benefit u/s. 80IB of the Act against the profits of Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eginning on the 1st day of April, 1993 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2004." From the above section it is clear that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB (4) for not more than 10 consecutive years. In the instant case, the first year deduction u/s. 80IB (4) was allowed in assessment year 2002-03. In Assessment Year 2002-03 the benefit was allowed and it was not reopened or it is not under scrutiny. Therefore, when the benefit was allowed in first assessment year, it cannot be disallowed in subsequent years. The first year is in which the assessee has to prove the existence of independent industrial undertaking and if it is accepted, the profit derived therefrom has to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IB (4) of the Act. In the instant case, we find that the Assessing Officer has accepted Unit-II as industrial undertaking in assessment year 2002-03 and relief remains undisturbed. The AO cannot on the same set of facts deny deduction for the subsequent years. The Gujrat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement Ltd. vs. CIT 123 ITR 669 has held that there is no provision of withdrawal of deduction once granted and such deduction cannot be denied in subsequent years u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing is not valid and we hold that there is no escaped assessment in the eye of law. The issue in controversy is also covered by the Decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 309, wherein the Bombay Jurisdictional High has relied upon the decision of Income Tax vs. Paul Brothers reported in 216 ITR 548. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has reopened the Assessment Year on the similar facts and it is merely change of opinion in the eye of law. In the result, the C.O. for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 are allowed. 12. In all ITA Nos. 145 to 150 for Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2009-10, the common issues raised by the Department which read as under:- "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's appeal by allowing the claim of deduction claimed u/s. 80IB for unit II, which is just an expansion of existing unit 1 without considering the merit of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A), has erred in saying that unit-11 is an independent manufacturing unit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB of the I.T. Act and allowed the deduction u/s. 80IB(4) on profit of said unit. 13. The brief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning independently. Having common management and few other common facilities, do not negate the independent identities of both the units. Therefore, in view of the facts of this case, in my opinion, Unit-II is an independent manufacturing unit, constructed by investing a much higher amount compared to Unit-I, which is eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(4). The AO is therefore directed to allow the deduction u/s. 80IB(4) to the appellant on Unit-II for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. This Ground of Appeal of the appellant is allowed accordingly." 15. We have gone through the order of the CIT(A) the CIT(A) has relied upon various judicial pronouncement. The main controversy is whether the assessee have separate Unit but maintaining the common record of excise duty, sales tax service tax, and having common registration and no separate permission from pollution department having a common electricity connection can be granted deduction u/s. 80IB(4). We find that in above circumstances the CIT(A) has relied upon the decision which is in favour of the assessee. During the course of hearing, learned DR could not produce any contrary decision against ....