9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt ) and also in the light of the Notification dated 09.05.12, the activity carried out by the assessee can be safely said to be manufacturing activity. The department has not come with a specific stand that on which date the assessee has actually commenced the production. The department has only found fault with the date mentioned in the certificate (form 10CCB) regarding which the assessee has successfully explained that it was due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of Chartered Accountant. The correct and rectified certificate has been produced. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that the activity has commenced months later or in any subsequent year. There is a difference of only one day. The assessee from the evidences on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the assessment order dated 17.03.2010 of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) observing that the AO has not properly examined the above issues. He observed that neither the production started before 31.03.2004 nor the activities carried out by the assessee can be said to be manufacturing activity for the purpose of claiming benefit under section 80IB of the Act. 3. The appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 has also been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 18.03.2010. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has followed the order of his predecessor for A.Y. 2005-06 while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The Department has also filed a cross objection in relation to the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring activity had not been carried out between the aforesaid dates, but on the next day after the end of the said period, hence, the assessee failed to fulfill the primary condition for claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 6. The assessee unsuccessfully contested the appeal against the above order before the Ld. CIT(A). The matter ultimately reached up to the level of the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee pleaded that he could not attend the hearing before the lower authorities because his wife was seriously ill. The assessee also filed relevant copies of medical reports. The assessee further claimed that the manufacturing activity was carried out prior to 01.04.2004 and produced certain additional evidences in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o electricity consumption during the period and that the assessee has failed to prove that the machinery was put to use and manufacturing activity had started prior to 01.04.04. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT, the assessee has come in appeal before us for A.Y. 2005-06. 7. The same issue is involved in relation to appeals for A.Y. 2006-07 preferred by the assessee and for A.Y. 2007-08 preferred by the Revenue. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. So far as the issue as to whether the activity carried out by the assessee is manufacturing activity or not, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee before us has submitted that the assessee buys Manganese Ores. They are first washed, silicon a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions and have also gone through the records. The issue for consideration before us is as to whether from the activity carried out by the assessee a new product comes into existence and whether the nature and characteristics of the old product gets changed giving rise to a new product which is different in nature and characteristic and usage. From the activity carried out by the assessee, it reveals that it coverts the raw Manganese Ores into powder by removing the silicon there from and hence an entirely new product comes into existence. Thus in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also in the light of the Notification dated 09.05.12, the activity carried out by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purpose of running of machines. 11. We further find that the department has not come with a specific stand that on which date the assessee has actually commenced the production. The department has only found fault with the date mentioned in the certificate (form 10CCB) regarding which the assessee has successfully explained that it was due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of Chartered Accountant. The correct and rectified certificate has been produced. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that the activity has commenced months later or in any subsequent year. There is a difference of only one day. The assessee from the evidences on the file has showed that since the date of limitation for claiming deduction was approaching, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
