TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws :- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding Unit No.47 as new Industrial Undertaking and allowing the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above, since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income" 3. Learned Representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 2003-04 (in ITA No.515/Ahd/2012), which was also heard along with this appeal, will apply mutatis mutandis for this assessment year as well. 4. Vide our order of even date, we have dismissed the aforesaid departmental appeal by observing as follows :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss in 1981 and started its manufacturing unit in 1989 at Kapasia Bazar. Building obtained SSI Registration as a small scale unit, in 1990, and the business was extended to unit in New Grains Market from 05.05.2000. The second unit at Plot No.47, New Grains Market Khokhara, as was noted by the Assessing Officer, was started on 3rd June 2002. It was also noted that there were several other places at which related activities (i.e. storage, stitching, cutting etc.) were carried out which were closely related to the main activity. The assessee's claim that the unit at plot no.47 produced a saleable product was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that buttoning etc. was done in a different unit and it was inconceivable as to how cloth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts. Without prejudice to this, assessing officer disallowed deduction under section 80 IB on DEPB income since it was not derived from industrial undertaking. Adequate opportunities were given to both appellant and assessing officer who represented the case. After detailed hearing, appellant's written submissions were sent to the assessing officer for her comments. Assessing officer's comments were forwarded to the appellant who submitted rejoinder. All these submissions, comments and rejoinder have been quoted in earlier para. The crux of assessing officer's argument is that appellant claimed unit number 47 as new industrial undertaking however only part of the work i.e. stitching of children's garments was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y marketable product and therefore it is manufacturing articles or things as held by several judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant. When all the units are considered a composite industrial undertaking, there cannot be separate books of each unit which is only performing a part work. Considering the facts of the case I am of the view that stitching, cutting, buttoning, storage of raw material and finished goods etc cannot be considered separate and independent activities. All these activities are linked to each other and these together make industrial undertaking. Just because appellant mentioned unit number 47 as new industrial undertaking, it cannot be deprived of using other units as composite manufacturing undertaking.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturing. Considering these facts, I am of the considered view that appellant's new industrial undertaking constituted all the units which manufactured articles or things and hence eligible for deduction under section 80 IB. All other arguments of the assessing officer and appellant become irrelevant once unit number 47 is not treated as isolated industrial undertaking independent of all other units. I therefore direct the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 80 IB to the appellant" 4. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the learned CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case ....