ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA vs. M/S. KAMLONG SAW & VENEER MILLS (P) LTD, POLASHBARI

This appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order dt. 27-02-2019 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’] by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [ in short, hereafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A), Dibrugarh.

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in giving relief to the assessee without verifying the facts of the case as the jurisdiction and power of CIT(A) is conterminous with the A.O.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing deduction u/s. 80-IE in respect of receipt of Excise Duty Refund and Sales Tax Remission of Rs.1,96,65,099/- and Rs. 1,33,04,068/- respectively made by the Assessing Officer without verifying the acts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) never verified the fact that whether Excise Duty Refund and Sales Tax emission received from the government are to be treated within the same bracket. Further, the case laws cited by the Ld. CIT(A) are in favour of assessee but the issue remains undecided in any Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse and bad in law. 4.That the Ld. CIT(A) ignored CBDT's Circular No.39/2016 dated 29.11.2016 wherein in the light of the decision in the case of Meghlaya Steels Ltd. in CA No. 7622 of 2014, the Board has directed not to file any appeal by the Department on the settled issue of revenue receipt by any assessee towards subsidies of transport, power and interest and the circular does not refer anything on Excise Duty Refund and Sales Tax remission. 5 That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues raised in the instant appeal by the revenue is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since the Hon’ble Tribunal has decided the case in favour of assessee for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013- 14 and ’2014-15 respectively, the same is applicable on the instant 2. AY 2015-16 M/s. Kamlang Saw & Veneer Mills P.Ltd appeal by the revenue and therefore, prayed that the appeal of revenue deserves to be dismissed.

4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative though supported the order of the ld.AO, but failed to controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record before us. The revenue is aggrieved with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act in respect of receipt of excise duty refund and sales tax remission. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we find that similar issue has come up for adjudication before this Tribunal in assesse’s own case for the assessment years 2012-13, ’13-14 and 2014-15 in ITA Nos. 195, 196 & 197/Gau/2017 dated 09-02-2018, wherein dealing with similar issue the appeal of revenue was dismissed. Relevant observation of the Tribunal is reproduced herein below:- “9. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we find force in the submission of the Sr. counsel for the assessee on the issue under consideration. The VAT/CST remission and excise duty refund are includable in the claim of deduction U/s 80IC of the Act for eligible units established at North Eastern States, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Meghalaya Mineral Product Vs. ACIT (2015) 38 ITR (trib) 186. Since the impugned decision of Id CIT(A) is based on the Tribunal's decision cited in his order (supra) and since Ld DR for the Revenue is unable to bring to our notice any change in law or facts. Therefore, we respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in Meghalaya Mineral Product (supra) and other decisions cited above, confirm the order of Id CIT(A). Therefore, these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

6. Since the issues raised in the instant appeal stands already adjudicated by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case ( supra) for 3. AY 2015-16 M/s. Kamlang Saw & Veneer Mills P.Ltd preceding assessment years (2012-13 to 2014-15) and the revenue being unable to place any other binding precedence in its favour, we fail to find any infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, grounds raised

by the revenue are dismissed. प�रणामत: �नधा�रती क� अपील खा�रज क� जाती है।

7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

आदेश खुले �यायपीठ म� �दनांक 11 -11-2022 को उ�घो�षत। The order pronounced in the open Court on 11 -11-2022