2013 (10) TMI 647 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act - SSI unit or not - Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and fabrication of plant and equipments, storage tanks and piping etc. and erectioning the same at the site of the customers. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 25.10.2005 showing total income of Rs. 39,66,727/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18.12.2007 and the total income was determined at Rs. 73,57,930/- - Held that - For A.Y. 2004-05, the Assessee was disallowed deduction under 80IB as the Assessee s unit was not considered to be Small Scale Industrial unit - Report of the expert dated 14-6-2007 giving the valuation report of the machinery, equipment/ tools and tackles was not filed by the assessee before the AO and that the contents of the expert s report go to the root of the issue of disallowance made under Section 80IB that whether the assessee was a small scale industrial undertaking, and accordingly, it shall be in the interest of the justice to restore the issue to the file of the AO with direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee Decided in favor of Assessee for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 06-07 regarding disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Assessee against the CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 06-07. The issue involved in both appeals was identical, except for the amount. The Assessee, engaged in manufacturing and fabrication, claimed deduction under section 80IB for its unit as a small-scale industry. However, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the claim as the investment in plant and machinery exceeded the limit of Rs. 1 crore as per the Industrial Development and Regulation Act, 1951. The A.O. relied on the Assessee's own case for the previous year where the claim was disallowed. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, noting discrepancies in the classification of plant and machinery, tools, and tackles by the Assessee.

2. The Assessee appealed before the ITAT, arguing that the facts were similar to the A.Y. 04-05 case where the Tribunal had directed a fresh decision by the A.O. The ITAT considered the previous decision and the Assessee's submission, finding merit in the argument that the facts were akin to the earlier year. The ITAT, following the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in the Assessee's case, directed the matter to be reconsidered by the A.O. for A.Y. 2005-06. The ITAT allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, aligning with the decision for A.Y. 04-05.

3. The ITAT's judgment emphasized the importance of consistent application of legal principles and directed the A.O. to re-examine the issue in accordance with the law. By restoring the matter to the A.O., the ITAT ensured that the Assessee would have an opportunity to present its case and clarified that the decision was for statistical purposes, maintaining the continuity with the previous year's order. The ITAT's meticulous analysis and reliance on precedent underscored the need for thorough consideration in tax matters, promoting fair adjudication and adherence to statutory provisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural history, legal arguments, and the ITAT's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case's nuances and the rationale behind the final outcome.