9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 210 - HC - Income TaxEntitled to the deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of Unit No.II - Held that - Merely because the relief granted for a previous assessment year is not withdrawn, it does not follow that the assessee is entitled to the relief for the subsequent years even if during the subsequent years the assessee fails to comply with the provisions of Section 80-IB or a condition precedent to a claim for deduction under Section 80-IB ceases to exist in the subsequent years for any reason. The mere fact that there is no power connection in Unit-II would make no difference. That by itself would not disentitle the assessees to the deduction. It is important to note that there is no suggestion, much less a finding, that Unit-II used the power supplied to Unit-I. Had that been even suggested, the assessee could have met the case. In fact, the assessee s case before us was that both the units were using generators. It is important to note in this regard that while dealing with the point that arises under the second question of law framed by us, it was noted by the Tribunal that the assessee had explained that the manufacturing process required uninterrupted regulated electric power supply and that, therefore, the assessee had not availed of any regular power connection but was entirely dependent on the power supplied by its own generator. The assessee also explained that the prices of the diesel had increased. The attention of the Tribunal was also invited to the paper books wherein an analysis of the factors reflecting upon the GP rates were mentioned. For administrative convenience, it is understandable that the assessees would maintain the same bank account in respect of both the units. The section does not make it mandatory to maintain separate bank accounts. For the same reason, the assessee cannot be denied a deduction merely because the telephone numbers are common. There is no reason for the assessees to have separate telephone connections in respect of each unit, if they can otherwise function with common telephone numbers. The section does not require the same either. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the deduction on the ground that the workers/employees were common in respect of Unit-I and Unit-II and that there was no demarcation of employees/workers as per the attendance register produced. As per Section 80-IB(2)(iv), where the industrial undertaking manufactures or produces articles or things, the section would apply if the undertaking inter alia employs ten or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power. The assessees, admittedly, carry on their activities with the aid of power. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals), however, denied the deduction in respect of the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 only on the basis of the assessment order for the assessment year 2003-04. That could not be so on the force of Mr. Putney s argument itself that each assessment year is to be considered separately. The assessee seeks the deduction. It would, therefore, have been for the assessee to produce evidence that the undertaking employs ten or more workers provided it was called for. The Assessing Officer did not seek any information regarding the number of workers employed by the assessee for these years. Mr. Kapoor infact stated that separate wage registers were not maintained only in the initial years but that, thereafter including for the assessment year 2006-07 onwards separate wage registers were maintained. It would be unfair then in any event to hold against the assessee with respect to the assessment year 2006-07 onwards on the basis of the finding for the assessment year 2003-04. The deduction, therefore, was wrongly denied on this ground for the assessment year 2006-07 onwards. - Decided in favour of assessee Trading addition - rejection of books of accounts - Held that The Tribunal took into consideration various aspects including the assessee s explanation for the fall in the GP rate. The assessee had explained, as is evident from the assessment order itself, that the fall in the GP rate was on account inter-alia of stiff competition from China. Sales bills of the respective years showing a fall in the prices of the assessee s finished products were filed. Further it was also contended that there was an increase in proportionate generator expenses, manufacturing expenses and job work charges. A detailed summary of these expenses was furnished. Moreover the assessee also drew the attention of the authorities to the effect that they were maintaining an excise register for the excisable stock. These were undoubtedly relevant factors and the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having relied upon the same. The decision of the Tribunal relying upon the fact that there were no adverse findings by the Excise Authorities cannot be said to be absurd either. The Tribunal s satisfaction was based on the material on record. The Tribunal s finding that the GP rate as suggested by the assessee is plausible warrants no interference. This was essentially a question of fact and not a substantial question of law.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition made under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80-IB: - Background: The appeals pertain to various assessment years, with the primary focus on the assessment year 2003-04. The appellant questioned the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision to allow the deduction under Section 80-IB for Unit-II despite the conditions allegedly not being satisfied. - Assessing Officer's Findings: The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction for several reasons, including the lack of separate books of accounts, commonality of employees, job work charges manipulation, absence of a separate power connection, and common bank accounts and telephone connections. - CIT (Appeals) Findings: The CIT (A) upheld the AO’s decision, emphasizing the lack of separate power connections, common purchases, and employees, among other factors, which indicated that Unit-II was not distinct from Unit-I. - ITAT's Decision: The ITAT reversed the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the deduction had been allowed in previous years (2001-02 and 2002-03) under Section 143(3) and should not be denied for the year in question without justifiable reasons. - High Court's Analysis: - Consistency in Deduction: The court emphasized that the conditions for Section 80-IB must be fulfilled each year. However, the AO cannot reopen issues decided in previous years unless the relief granted for the initial year is disturbed. - Separate Books of Accounts: The court noted that maintaining separate books of accounts is not a statutory requirement under Section 80-IB. The AO had already considered and accepted the assessee’s explanation for not maintaining separate books in the initial year. - Common Facilities: The court found that common facilities like bank accounts and telephone connections do not disqualify the deduction. The key is whether the new unit operates independently and fulfills the conditions of Section 80-IB. - Employment of Workers: The court held that the requirement to employ a minimum number of workers must be met each year. The AO did not seek specific information for subsequent years, and the assessee maintained separate wage registers from 2006-07 onwards. 2. Addition under Section 145(3): - Background: The AO added ?14,75,940/- to the assessee's income by rejecting the books of account and applying a higher gross profit (GP) rate. - CIT (Appeals) Findings: The CIT (A) upheld the AO’s decision, noting discrepancies in the GP rates over the years. - ITAT's Decision: The ITAT deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation for the fall in GP rate due to factors like competition from China and increased manufacturing expenses. - High Court's Analysis: - Evaluation of GP Rate: The court found the ITAT’s decision reasonable, considering the detailed explanations provided by the assessee and the lack of adverse findings by the Excise Authorities. - Fact-based Decision: The court emphasized that the decision on GP rates is a factual determination, and the ITAT’s reliance on the material provided by the assessee was justified. Conclusion: - Appeals Dismissed: The appeals for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 were dismissed based on Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribes a monetary limit for filing appeals. - Deduction under Section 80-IB: The court upheld the ITAT’s decision to allow the deduction for Unit-II, rejecting the department’s contentions regarding the lack of separate books of accounts and common facilities. - Addition under Section 145(3): The court found no substantial question of law in the ITAT’s decision to delete the addition, affirming the factual basis of the Tribunal’s findings. Judgment: The High Court dismissed the appeals, answering both issues in favor of the assessee.
|
