2009 (5) TMI 588 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10B - Manufacture Or Production - 100% EOU - Revision u/s 263 - Processing of goods - AO found that assessee simply carried out trading of manufactured items purchased from local traders is found perverse on facts - AO further found that no manufacturing has been undertaken by the assessee on its own and only job charges paid for the work done by other manufacturers - Held that - findings of the AO are not correct - Assessee has purchased raw materials, semi finished goods etc. and undertaken various manufacturing activities - The activity carried out by the appellant thus was not that of giving mere feather touches. Even though the original material did not lose its identity completely yet a different commercial commodity has been brought into existence by the appellant, the end-product so produced being different and distinct both in character and use as well. Appellant s registration with various Government agencies as a manufacturing unit and the findings of fact as are reached, we hold that the appellant could be said to have undertaken business activity amounting to manufacture or production of articles in these years under appeal before us and the income thereof is thus eligible for exemption under s. 10B of the Act.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the orders passed under Section 250.
2. Withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Determination of whether the assessee's activities qualify as "manufacturing" or "production" under Section 10B.
4. Consideration of new facts and legal developments post the initial Tribunal order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Orders Passed Under Section 250:
The assessee contested the orders dated 29th March 2007 and 14th March 2008 passed by the CIT(A), Jodhpur, arguing that they were "bad in law and on facts." The Tribunal found that the orders were based on the earlier Tribunal decision for the assessment year 2001-02, which had denied the exemption under Section 10B. However, the Tribunal noted significant changes in facts and legal developments since that decision.

2. Withdrawal of Exemption Under Section 10B:
The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's withdrawal of the exemption under Section 10B, which was initially claimed by the assessee as a 100% export-oriented unit (EOU). The AO argued that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing or production but merely in trading activities. The Tribunal, however, found this conclusion to be perverse and incorrect based on the examination of the books of account, purchases, sales, and other expenses.

3. Determination of Whether the Assessee's Activities Qualify as "Manufacturing" or "Production":
The Tribunal analyzed whether the activities undertaken by the assessee amounted to "manufacturing" or "production" as contemplated under Section 10B. The assessee provided detailed explanations and evidence of various steps involved in transforming raw materials and semi-finished goods into finished products. These steps included designing, sample making, grinding, engraving, chemical treatment, assembling, polishing, and packing. The Tribunal concluded that these activities resulted in a commercially different and distinct product, thus qualifying as manufacturing or production.

4. Consideration of New Facts and Legal Developments Post the Initial Tribunal Order:
The Tribunal considered new facts and legal developments that had emerged since the initial Tribunal order for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee argued that significant changes in the product mix and the nature of activities undertaken had occurred. Additionally, recent judicial pronouncements, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, supported a broader interpretation of "manufacturing" and "production." The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd., which was relied upon in the initial order, had been reversed by the Rajasthan High Court.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities amounted to manufacturing or production of articles eligible for exemption under Section 10B. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the assessee was held fully entitled to the deduction under Section 10B for the assessment years in question. The appeals by the assessee were allowed.

← Previous Next →