AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....started manufacturing activity/production on or before 31.03.2004 to claim benefit under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. 2. The appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the CIT) passed under section 263 of the Act vide which the Ld. CIT has set aside the assessment order dated 17.03.2010 of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) observing that the AO has not properly examined the above issues. He observed that neither the production started before 31.03.2004 nor the activities carried out by the assessee can be said to be manufacturing activity for the purpose of claiming benefit under section 80IB of the Act. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B) which is certified by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee, the assessee has commenced operation/activity on 01.04.2004 whereas section 80IB required the assessee to start the manufacturing activity during the period beginning of the 1st day of April 1993 and ending of 31st day of March, 2004. He, therefore, observed that since the manufacturing activity had not been carried out between the aforesaid dates, but on the next day after the end of the said period, hence, the assessee failed to fulfill the primary condition for claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 6. The assessee unsuccessfully contested the appeal against the above order before the Ld. CIT(A). The matter ultimately reached up to the level of the Tribunal. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the AO had not properly examined the case. He observed that the activity carried out by the assessee was not a manufacturing activity and further that as per the certificate of the Chartered Accountant in form No.10CCB, the activity of the assessee, if any, stared on 01.04.04 and not prior to 01.04.04. He further observed that even there was no electricity consumption during the period and that the assessee has failed to prove that the machinery was put to use and manufacturing activity had started prior to 01.04.04. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT, the assessee has come in appeal before us for A.Y. 2005-06. 7. The same issue is involved in relation to appeals for A.Y. 2006-07 preferred by the assessee and for A.Y. 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though mining of limestone and marble blocks and getting and sizing them cannot be said to be a manufacture or production of an article, however, the conversion into lime and limestone or concrete by stone crushers could legitimately considered to be a manufacturing process. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. The issue for consideration before us is as to whether from the activity carried out by the assessee a new product comes into existence and whether the nature and characteristics of the old product gets changed giving rise to a new product which is different in nature and characteristic and usage. From the activity carried out by the assessee, it reveal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces the AO did not find any fault with the same. The assessee has also successfully explained the non consumption of electricity by showing the purchase of diesel generator set and has explained that since there was some delay in the installation of electric connection, hence, diesel generator set was used for generation of electricity for the purpose of running of machines. 11. We further find that the department has not come with a specific stand that on which date the assessee has actually commenced the production. The department has only found fault with the date mentioned in the certificate (form 10CCB) regarding which the assessee has successfully explained that it was due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of Chartered Accountan....