DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. JYOTI PLASTIC WORKS P. LTD, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 17.04.2014 passed by CIT(A)-20, Mumbai for Assessment Year(AY) 2010-11 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was not correct in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, amounting to Rs.64,30,954/-, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not fulfilled the condition of section 80IB(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Act following the decision of Ld CIT(A) for A.Y. 2009-10 had the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court for A.Y. 1999-2000 to 2004-2005 in assessee's own case, without appreciating the facts that department has not accepted these decisions and SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court?"

The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of engineering plastic products, filed its return of income on 30.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1,79,24,711/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and selected for scrutiny.

While making the assessment, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80IB for Rs. 64,30,954/- in respect of Daman Unit of assessee which had commenced in the AY-2003-04 being 8th year of the claim and the assessee was ask to justify his claim in response to which the assessee submitted his reply dated 12.02.2013 and explained that similar deduction was allowed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case in respect of AY-1999-2000, however the contention of assessee was not accepted by the AO by observing that department has filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and disallowed the claim in its order dated 26.02.2013. 4. Against the order of AO, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) and the same was allowed by the CIT(A) in its order dated 17.04.2014, against which the present appeal was filed before us. 5. We have heard the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and Departmental Representative (DR) of the revenue and perused the material available on record. The AR of the assessee has placed on record the copy of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 28.04.2015 which shows that the SLP filed by the Department had been dismissed. 6. The AR of the assessee has argued that the issue raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case titled as CIT vs. M/s Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. reported vide 339 ITR 491 (Bom). 7. The DR of the revenue has fairly conceded the fact and admitted that SLP filed by the Department had been dismissed, after filing the present appeal. 8. We have perused the material available on record and find that ground raised