Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 30.10.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi.
The only effective ground in this appeal reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.43,39,915/- made by the AO on account of not allowing deduction u/s 80IC of the IT Act, 1961.”
During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated the this issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.
2 Woven Gold Acrylic (I) Pvt. Ltd. 791 to 793 & 796/2016, order dated 14.12.2016 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). The aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was not controverted by the ld. Sr. DR.
After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that the present issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the department by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide aforesaid referred to order dated 14.12.2016 wherein their Lordships observed as under: “The relevant facts are that the assessee manufactures goods classified by the Indian Trade Classification (No. 39.22) - baths, shower baths, wash basins, bidets, lavatory pans, seats and covers, flushing cisterns, similar sanitary wares of plastics etc. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the classification and was of the opinion that in view of the use of certain articles for the production of these goods, such as fibre glass etc., the benefit of Section 80IC of the Act was granted improperly. After examining the submissions, the AO concluded that Section 80IC benefit could not be given and upheld the claim in that behalf. CIT(A) and ITAT, however, differed with the AO and set aside his order. It was reasoned that the use of prohibited articles such as fibre glass for the making of an entirely different final product which did not figure in the list of prohibited items in the thirteenth Schedule of the Act per se did not amount to their manufacture and that as long as the finished goods did not figure in the list of prohibited items, it could qualify for the benefit.
3 Woven Gold Acrylic (I) Pvt. Ltd. We have considered the submissions of the parties and are of the opinion that the ITAT's view on this aspect is sound and does not call for interference. Moreover, for other years, i.e. AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2014-15, the Revenue has consistently upheld the assessee's claim. No question of law, therefore, arises.”
In view of the above, since the issue under consideration now has been settled by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by confirming the order of the ITAT in the preceding years, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department.
In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 22/09/2017)