TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the facts and circumstances of the case and interpretation of law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the income earned by the assessee as income not eligible for deduction U/s 80IB. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in concluding that the assessee has not carried out any manufacturing activity is contrary to the facts of the case on record and hence deserves to be deleted. 04. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee firm has not caried out any manufacturing activity at its industrial undertaking at Daman on or before 31.03.2004. 05. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings." 3. Succinct facts are that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of insulated cable, coper scrap, AC, DC wire set, stranded copper wire, wiring harness and PV tape and sleeve. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration, declaring a to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued on 21.12.2005, stating as to why its claim made u/s 80-1B of the Act should not be disallowed? 5. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee has filed a written submission on 26.12.2006, which is reproduced below: "Initially our client do not have the facility for manufacturing of rubber cable but, it has best technical know-how for manufacturing of rubber cable. It has taken order and executed the same by way of manufacturing done by M/s. Nangalwala Chemical Industries of Alwar, under the direct supervision of one of the partner Mr. Naresh Agarwal. Mr Naresh Agarwal is in this line since last 10 years. He is the main technical person of our client's unit. As the manufacturing process has been carried out by M/s Nangalwaia Chemical Industries, under the direct supervision and control and with the aid of technical know how of our client, our client is the manufacturer." 6. The assessing officer has gone through the submission of the assessee and observed that assessee is not doing any manufacturing activity and it is doing job work from M/s Nangalwaia Chemical Industries, which is the sister concern of the assessee. The assessing officer observed that Mr N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 10. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Regarding power connection, ld Counsel submits that admin, of U. T. of Daman & Diu has sanctioned the power connection on 01.03.2004 subject to submission of occupancy certificate of the building. Thereafter the agreements were entered into with the Electricity Department on 23.03.2004 for the release of power connection and ultimately power was released on 30.03.2004. Thus, even if the assessee operates the machinery for one day on 31.03.2004 and manufactures items, it is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Therefore, as per ld Counsel, this critical evidence has been overlooked and ignored by the lower authorities while concluding that power has not been used for manufacturing. The Learned Counsel also pleaded that ld CIT(A) did not confine scope of adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon'ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s 80-I of the Act. In this regard it is submitted by ld Counsel that section 80-I is pari-materia to section 80-IB of the Act and therefore is squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee as well. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: "6. It cannot perhaps be disputed on the basis of the decisions relied upon that the expression 'engaged in manufacture' indicates that the assessee should be directly involved in the manufacturing process and it will not include the cases where he gets the goods manufactured totally by an outside agency. Incidentally, the Madras High Court in its decision in Chillies Export House Ltd.'s case (supra) referred to the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Bulbu Prasad Amarnath v. CST [1964] 15 STC 46 wherein it was held that it is not merely the person who manufactures but even the person who had the goods manufactured would be entitled to the benefit of the definition. In so doing the learned Judges referred to 33, Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edn. 'Revenue&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A. Mukherjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718. The relevant findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: "3. In our judgment, the answer to this question is squarely covered by the judgment of our High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Pharma (P.) Ltd.[1982] 137 ITR 879. In this case, it was held that although the plant and machinery employed for the purpose of manufacture belonged to Pharmed and the services of certain employees were also utilised in that process, the manufacturing activity was really that of the assessee. It is not necessary that the manufacturing company must manufacture the goods by its own plant and machinery at its own factory. If in substance the manufacturing company has employed another company for getting the goods manufactured by it under its own supervision or control, the assessee can be considered as a company engaged in manufacture of goods and, thus, an industrial company. Mr. Dalvi has also invited our attention to the fact that in Neo Pharma (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), the Division Bench of our Court had relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718 , and....