CIT vs. MALBRO APPLIANCES PVT LTD

$-2 * r IN TIIE HIGI{ COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELIII rTA38212012 CI]' ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate versus MALBRO APPLIANCES PVT LTD I'hrough None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER '/, 18.07.2012 1. 'ittir appeal is directed against the judgment of the ITAT in ITA NO. 947/Dell2011 dated 16tr'November,2011. The Revenue contends that the Tribunal fell into error in upholding the direction to grant the assessee's claim for the benefit under 80 IC of the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment yeat 2007-2008. Z. The assessee which was involved in manufacturing and trading of LPG gas stove and rubber pipes started a new unit at Parwanoo, H.P., which is manufacturing gas stoves by using rnachinery. It accordingly claimed deduction under Section 80 IC of the Act. The amount clairned in this regard was Rs.1,88,61,5951-. This was dis-allowed stating that the assessee had admitted that its existing unit at Delhi had shifted to Parwanoo. The assessee's further claim for enlistment expenses to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs was also dis- allowed. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was allowed. The matter was caried in appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its irnpugned order, allowed the appeal, holding as follows :- "9. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material on record. We find that while allotving the claint of B]IC of the Act, the CIT(A), khas duly taken the attending.facts into consideration. Thefacts are that the assessee had indeed set up a new unil in Pnrwanoo, which setting up is amply proved.fi'otn the documentary evidences produced on ,€ 2012:DHC:9774-DB

-]I ? I record. T'his evidence comprises of the rent agreenrcnt, shou,ing that a factory premises vtas taken on lease where the new unit was set up and 'producfion started in September, 2006, the certificate and receipt from the Electricity Department shotving the obtaining of a new pov'er connection' details of employees and particulars of their domicile establishing them to be local residents of Panuanoo and there abouts declarationfiledwith the Excise Departrnent for seeking excise exemption qua the new unit and list of notified areas substantiating that deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act was ivailabte for nev, industrial undertaking set up in the concerned area. The Assessing Officer y)as swayed by a non existent alleged admission by the assessee that its Delhi ttnit had been shifted to Paru,anoo. The relevant portion of the assessment order in this regard as follows: "......... ...The AR of the assessee by letter dated 12.10.2009 submitted that the assessee company, has shifted its unit dtn'ing the year to Parwanoo. ......." A copy of the saidletter dated 12.10.2009 has beenplaced on record before us, at Assessee's Paper Book (APB) 29-31. The relevant portion ofthe saidletter reads asfollotvs :- PARWANOO 90/1, Ist floor, Sector-}4, Ambota, Old Kasoli Road, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The company was involved in mandacturing of IP Gas Stoves and Rubber House as its Delhi Unit up to September, 2006. After that, the assessee entered into a tie up v,ith HPCL, BPCL, and OIC. These three companies had developed a consorthtnt Brand called "Suraksha". The lssessee conzpany then started manufacturing "suraksha" Rubber tlouse at its Delhi Unit and LP Gas stoves at its Parvanoo unit. The Gos Stoves manufacturing f'ont this unit is supplied to Gas outlets maintained by BPCL, HPCL and IOC. We have perused the letter in its entirely. Nou'here in this letter has the assessee admitted/sttbnitted having shifted its unit from Delhi to Parwanoo. Rather the afore quoted portion of the letter categorically shou,s that the conxpany had two units, one at Delhi and the other having been started at Parvtanoo. In viev, of the above, there being no merit therein, grottnd no.2 raised by the department is reiected. " 'a) 2012:DHC:9774-DB

9 u 3. In view of the above, findings which ale based entirely on the facts, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is accordingly rejected. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J t!(.-.-, .. R.V.EASWAR, J JULY t8,2or2 p I 2012:DHC:9774-DB