Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 872 - AT - Income TaxDisallowing the claim u/s. 80IC - Not treating the activity at Kala Amb as a manufacturing activity by revenue - definition of manufacture u/s. 2(29BA) - whether a mosquito repellant is distinct from the parts constituting it such as mould, plug, wire, porcelain, led etc. and therefore is manufacture? - Held that:- Revenue Authorities has given a sufficient opportunity to the assessee for filing the Satisfaction Note for filing the eligibility condition for claiming deduction u/s. 80IC of the I.T. Act, with the proof of documentary evidence. The assessee failed to produce the sufficient evidence before the revenue authorities. Revenue Authorities has considered the reply dated 12.12.2007 and has rightly held that it is apparent that dies and moulds which form bulk portion of the plant and machinery are being used at Delhi because there is no tool room facility at Kala Amb. Dies and moulds are very heavy so their movement is restricted. If this is true, then machincery wort of ₹ 10,400/- odd is being used at Kala Amb (HP). So it can be visualized what portion of the complete manufacturing process is being carried out at Kala Amb. We fully agree with the findings given by the revenue authorities. Secondly, the assessee has also not produced the electricity bill issued by the concerned electricity department. After examining the details of electricity bill, we find that as much as ₹ 35,124/- were incurred for electricity in Delhi whereas as paltry sum of ₹ 3135/- has been incurred on electricity at Kala Amb. For this also assessee has not produced any electricity bills received from the electricity department. In our considered view that no manufacturing activity is being carried out at Kala Amb. If there is any activity i.e. neglible activity was carried out. Therefore, the Revenue Authorities has rightly denied the deduction u/s. 80IC of the I.T. Act to the assessee. Assessee has not filed any documentary evidence for substantial its claim before the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A) as well as before us establishing that assessee is in manufacturing of Mosquito Repellant machines etc. The entire machine was not made at Kala Amb. Only assembling of machine was done at Kala Amb (HP). The assessee has also not furnished any purchase bills of machinery to show that it was a new purchase. The assessee was in the business of manufacturing of Mosquito Repellant machine from the year 1998, that means the business of manufacturing and export of Mosquito Repellant was already in existence. A unit was set up at Kala Amb where the same activity or rather part of the activity was done. The entire machine was not made in Kala Amb. Only the assembly of the machine was done at Kala Amb. The same business was continued but only a part was shifted to Kala Amb. Therefore, it is a reconstruction of the existing business and assessee has failed to establish its claim before the revenue authorities. The company at Delhi is doing major part of the work and the unit at Kala Amb gets the article in the same condition in which it is to be sold. The cabinet or the main part of the machine is made at Delhi. The plug is made in the moulding machines and the pins in the plug are procured. The resistance wire and LED are procured from Delhi and the machinery is assembled at Kala Amb (H.P.). The main machines for making this item are moulds which are used to give shape to the plugs and heaters. Therefore conditions uls 80IC 4(i)& (ii) are not satisfied. - Decided against assessee.
|