9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 756 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - part of the manufacturing activity being done from outside unit - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has passed valid order by taking the view that even if the part of manufacturing activities are being done from outside the unit, the deduction under section 80IB could not be disallowed. This view has also been affirmed by case of Penwalt India Ltd. 1991 (4) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and CIT vs. Oricon P. Ltd. 1983 (10) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT So merely because of the fact that part of the manufacturing process resulting in N products was carried on by an outside agency the assessee would still be considered as manufacturer. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has also taken identical view in case of Sunrise Metal Industries 2002 (11) TMI 248 - ITAT BOMBAY-H . The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue has failed to bring on record if this settled proposition of law has been overturned by any higher forum. Appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Eligibility for deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the assessee met the conditions of section 80IB(2)(iv) despite outsourcing part of the manufacturing process. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee sought to condone a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to a bona fide belief that the limitation period had been extended due to the pandemic, based on a Supreme Court order dated 10.01.2022. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector vs. MST Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, the delay was condoned to advance the cause of justice. 2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB: The assessee, engaged in the manufacturing of plastic containers, bottles, and caps, claimed a deduction under section 80IB amounting to Rs. 13,20,693/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted this claim but later reopened the case, disallowing Rs. 5,46,724/- of the deduction on the grounds that part of the manufacturing was outsourced to a non-80IB unit. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, leading the Revenue to approach the Tribunal. 3. Conditions of Section 80IB(2)(iv): The primary contention was whether the assessee's outsourcing of part of the manufacturing process disqualified it from claiming the deduction under section 80IB. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal examined whether the assessee's activities met the conditions stipulated under section 80IB. The Tribunal noted several judicial precedents, including Sunrise Metal Industries vs. ITO 89 ITD 406 and Board Circular No. 347 dated 07.07.1982, which supported the view that partial outsourcing does not negate eligibility for the deduction if the primary manufacturing activity is conducted by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had demonstrated that the outsourced work was done under its direct supervision and control, and the ownership of goods remained with the assessee throughout the process. The Tribunal cited various case laws, including Chillies Exports House Ltd. Vs CIT (225 ITR 814), Addl. CIT Vs. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd. (113 ITR 718), and CIT vs. Penwalt India Ltd. (196 ITR 813), which consistently held that partial outsourcing does not disqualify an entity from being considered as engaged in manufacturing for the purposes of section 80IB. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for deduction under section 80IB, as the primary manufacturing activities were conducted in-house, and the outsourced activities were ancillary and done under the assessee's supervision. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the decision to allow the deduction. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IB despite outsourcing part of the manufacturing process, as the primary conditions of the section were met. The order was pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2022.
|
