2014 (4) TMI 936 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IC Manufacture activity - air spring assembly - Held that - The assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08 shows that the deduction u/s. 80IC has been allowed even in assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act - Relying upon CIT vs. Modi Industries 2010 (8) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT - once the claim for deduction u/s 80J has been allowed to the assessee in the first year and also for the subsequent two years, such deduction was allowable in the subsequent assessment years within the period of 5 years - the assessee has been granted deduction u/s. 80IC in earlier years and that also in assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act - Now in the 3rd year the Revenue cannot suddenly take up the ground that the assessee is not doing any manufacturing and therefore, is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IC. The assessee is engaged in manufacture and production of an article or thing named air spring assembly - The assessee imports air spring component (fitted in the top plate) and emergency air spring component (fitted in the emergency spring and calibrated with the bottom plate) - These items are imported from Germany from M/s ContiTech Luftfedersysteme GmbH (Hannover, Germany) - Rest all other goods / raw materials required in the manufacturing process are procured from India and employed by the Appellant in the manufacturing process at the Paonta Sahib Unit - The description of manufacturing process amply proves that the imported material as well as local materials are used in a manufacturing process which results in a final product which is quite distinct from the components used, and has distinct usage too thus, the order of the CIT(A) set aside and the Assessee was engaged in manufacturing of air spring assembly and is hence eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC for the manufacturing activity undertaken at its Paonta Sahib unit Decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IC for profits derived from the Paonta Sahib unit.
2. Disallowance under section 14A by invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
3. Alleged procedural lapses and violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IC:

The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of deduction under section 80IC for the profits derived from the Paonta Sahib unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the Paonta Sahib unit was not engaged in manufacturing activities. The AO observed that the expenses claimed for the Paonta Sahib unit were significantly lower compared to the other units, and concluded that the higher profits shown were merely to claim deductions under Chapter VI-A. Additionally, the AO noted that the work awarded by the Ministry of Railways involved supplying air springs manufactured by M/s Contitech, Germany, and inferred that no manufacturing activity was undertaken by the Paonta Sahib unit.

The assessee contended that it undertook various operations such as assembly, fastening, fabricating, and testing, which amounted to manufacturing. The assessee provided detailed submissions and process flows to justify the manufacturing activities at the Paonta Sahib unit, emphasizing that the final product was different from the imported components and thus eligible for deduction under section 80IC.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, concluding that the original articles did not undergo substantial change and a commercially different product with a distinctive name, character, and use did not emerge. The CIT(A) also noted that the metal attachments were manufactured at the Noida units and transported to the Paonta Sahib unit, indicating that the manufacturing activities claimed were a mere eye wash.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal noted that this was not the first year of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IC, and the deduction had been allowed in previous years under section 143(3) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, citing case laws which support that deductions allowed in initial years should not be denied in subsequent years if the facts remain identical. The Tribunal also examined the merits of the case and concluded that the assessee was indeed engaged in manufacturing activities, as evidenced by detailed submissions, process charts, and photographs. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IC.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A by Invoking Rule 8D:

The grounds related to the disallowance under section 14A by invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, were not pressed by the assessee's counsel during the hearing. Consequently, these grounds were dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. Alleged Procedural Lapses and Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The assessee raised concerns about procedural lapses and violation of principles of natural justice, arguing that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing adequate opportunity and without considering the principles of natural justice. However, these grounds were not elaborated upon in detail during the proceedings, and the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the substantive issue of the disallowance of deduction under section 80IC.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and holding that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities at the Paonta Sahib unit, thereby eligible for deduction under section 80IC. The grounds related to disallowance under section 14A were dismissed as they were not pressed during the hearing. The appeal was partly allowed, with the primary relief granted on the issue of deduction under section 80IC.

← Previous Next →