TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be applicable on an 'eligible undertaking' which is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. However, the assessee acquired the plant under a slump sale agreement and not by any scheme of amalgamation or demerger." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Aluminium products, Conductors and Rods, filed its return of income for relevant assessment year 20010-11 on 30.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 17,08,66,587/-. The assessment was completed on 14.02.2013 under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order besides the other disallowance, disallowed the deduction of under section 80IB for Rs. 4,68,67,102/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was allowed full relief for claim of deduction under section 80IB. Thus, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and perused the material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order of AO and submits that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee. The benefits of section 80IB are travelled (Transferred) with the undertaking and the fact of change of ownership does not affect the deduction. Sub-section (1) & (2) of section 80IB categorically refers to the business carried out by industrial undertaking. Thus, mere change of ownership would not affect the claim of deductions. 5. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the Circular No. 1/2013 dated 17.02.2013 issued with regard to the provisions of section 10A & 10B wherein CBDT clarified that on the ground of change of ownership of undertaking by way of slump sale, the claim of exemption cannot be denied to and otherwise eligible undertaking. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that language of section 10A &10B is identical worded to the language in section 80IB. Thus, the Circular issued by CBDT is squarely applicable on the fact of the present case. The ld AR for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Heartland Delhi Transcription Services Pvt. Ltd. [366 ITR 523], Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Mega Packages [203 Taxman 236 (P&H)], Delhi Tribunal in ITO vs. Advance Valves Global [8 ITR 684 (Del Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lease qua its latter unit-II from M/s Pankaj Aluminium. Necessary list of such assets forms part of case records before us. We quote above referred case law (supra) making it clear that ownership/purchase of assets is nowhere mandatory in Section 80IB deduction claim. The assessee has further demonstrated to have employed sufficient work force (more than 10 workers) by placing on record its corresponding provident fund challan. Its submissions dated 10.03.2007 (supra) have already referred to separately maintained books of account in relation to the eligible unit-II to rebut assessment findings. All this is followed by necessary registration/certifications/approvals/inspections under central excise law, sales tax (both central as well as state), factory license, EPFO's letter, DIPP correspondence, service tax and power grid's, reports discussed hereinabove. Neither the Assessing Officer's remand report nor Revenue's argument before us are able to rebut correctness of the said overwhelming evidence forming part of case records running into more than 330 pages. We are not touching upon contents of each and every document in order to avoid lengthy repetition for the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between the parties is mere academic now as the assessee's relevant evidence as admitted in lower appellate proceedings has successfully demonstrated it to be eligible for Section 80IB deduction. 17. The Revenue's last argument is that the CIT(A) has neither examined himself assessee's additional evidence nor the Assessing Officer could do so since it had not placed on record the said document before the Assessing Officer. It however emerges that the relevant additional evidence is more or less in the form of necessary approvals obtained from various central and state governments' departments (supra) like central excise sales tax etc. We repeat that the CIT(A)'s above extracted findings sufficiently indicate that he had made all efforts to get necessary remand report from Assessing Officer who did not do the needful. The said latter authority rather raised all technical issues instead of deputing someone for necessary verification. We therefore are of the opinion that it was incumbent for the Assessing Officer to get all facts verified than harping on technical ifs and buts. We further make it clear that the instant appeal was filed in the year 2008. There is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at formation of undertaking, when it was formed satisfied and duly fulfilled the requirement of the Clauses of section 10B(2) or Clause (2) & (3) as it was not formed by splitting up of reconstruction of business already in existence and there was no factual finding that at the time of establishment of formation of undertaking business already in existence was split or reconstructed. There was no bar in section 10B on transfer or sale of undertaking by assessee which has formed sister concerned. 10. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Mega Packages (supra) held that the benefit admissible to an undertaking could not be denied to the assessee for remaining period on the ground that subsection (12) of section 80IA empresses only in case of amalgamation or demerger of an Indian company and therefore, such benefit would not be available in case of change from proprietorship to partnership. 11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Sonata Software Ltd. [343 ITR 397] while discussing the condition precedent for exemption under section 10A held that there are two condition cast in negative term; (i) Industrial undertaking is not firmed by splitting up r....