9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss verification. On the contrary, the documents produced by the assessee which are approvals granted by various regulatory authorities go to show that the activities conducted by the assessee are in the nature of manufacture. We are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has committed error in confirming the assessment order, accordingly, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) are hereby set aside and the A.O. is directed to allow the benefit of 80IC to the assessee. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. - Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Jeetan NagpaL, CA, Sh. Sanjay Arora, CA and Ms. Pallavi , CA For the Respondent : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl . CIT ORDER PER BENCH: The assessee filed the captioned Appeals aggrieved by the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17/12/2014 for Assessment Year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, order dated 15/01/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, order dated 27/09/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14. Since the above appeals are pertaining to single assessee involved similar issues to be decided, the above appeals have been heard toget ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds are without prejudice to each other. Your appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to delete and /or to modify all or any of the fore going ground(s) of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee was incorporated on May 21st, 2004 and commenced its activities on October, 1st, 2004, the assessee is a 100% ancillary unit to Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The assessee manufacturing facility is situated in a notified area and the assessee is claiming to be engaged in manufacture of an article or thing, which is not specified in thirteenth Schedule. The assessee entered into a contract with Hindustan Unilever Ltd.( HUL for short) on 22/04/2004. The Assessee claimed that as per the said contract, the role of the assessee is to process the raw material provided by HUL, the assessee also receives the final products from HUL for stacking and packaging the said products and dispatching the same. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act on the ground that the activities undertaken by the assessee regarding processing of raw material received from HUL and then feeding the processed raw material to the mother plant of HUL constitutes manufactures . The said cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground of low tax effect. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the activities conducted by the assessee constitute manufacture and the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has taken us through the various documents produced in the paper book and sought for allowing the Grounds of Appeal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the activities of the assessee does not constitute manufacture and the assessee is only a service provider, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly upheld the assessment order which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Further submitted that, vide confirmation letter dated 21/12/2011 the representative of the HUL for the AY 2009-10 stated that as per the agreement within the Assessees and HUL, activities undertake by the Assessee constitutes C F Service only, therefore, the Assessee is not entitled for the benefit under Section 80IC of the Act. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue to be decided in the present appeal as to whether or not, the activities of the assessee co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions etc are received through conveyor belts from mother plant which are then stacked through mechanical process and packed in cartons etc. loaded into trucks and dispatched. 8. From analysing the above facts is observed that the assessee is engaged in industrial activities and such activity tantamount to manufacture or production of article or thing as the process deployed by the assessee bringing into existence of new goods which are the chemical as well as commercially different from the raw material, the assessee obtained various permissions from the Government Authorities. The assessee is also registered and license to work as factory in the Factories Act, 1948 and produced the registration certificate from Form No. 3 placed at Page No. 517 to 524 of the Paper Book 2. The assessee has also obtained approval from Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board and the copy of the Approval placed at Page No. 525 -527 of the paper book 2. The assessee has also approved under weights and measurements Act and the copy of the approval is placed at page No. 528 to 533 of P. B-2. The assessee has also deployed automated and semi automatic sophisticated machinery in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asured quantities required by HUL. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs NC Budhiraja 204 ITR 413 has observed that the test for determining whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in the trade as a new and distinct commodity. 10. Considering the above facts and circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the activities conducted by the assessee constitute manufacture. The Ld. DR has also argued that HUL vide confirmation dated 21/12/2011 issued during the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2009-10 submitted that as per the agreement between the assessee and HUL, activities under taken by the assessee constitute C F Services only. It is evident from the record that the said confirmation obtained by the A.O. from HUL was not confronted with the assessee during the assessment proceedings and the document or the person who has issued the said document was not subject to any cross examination or cross verification. On the contrary, the documents produced by the assessee which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
