TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 10B of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and allow the claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos.379 to 381/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member And Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member Appellant By : Shri D. Devaraj, C.A. Respondent By : Smt. Prescilla Singsit, D.R. ORDER Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the composite order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dt.14.11.2014 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 2. The brief facts leading to the controversy are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act raised in Ground Nos.3 4. 5. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the dispute revolves around the deduction under Section 10B in respect of 100% EOU unit. The assessee set up a 100% EOU in F.Y. 2006-07 after obtaining the necessary permission as accepted by the Assessing Officer in paras 4 and 4.2 of the impugned assessment order. The 100% EOU has commenced production from 29.9.2006 relevant to the Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 10B in respect of the profits of the EOU for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 which was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. While granting the approval as an EOU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed merely on the ground that certain plant and machinery is situated outside the bounded area when the assessee is an exporter and not an importer at all in view of the Notification No.53/1997 dt.3.6.1997 issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act as per which the custom bonding is required only where imports are contemplated for use in manufacturing/production of goods for export. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Caritor India Pvt. Ltd. 369 ITR 463 as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arts Beauty Exports 357 ITR 276 (Del). The learned Authorised Representative also relied upon the decision of the Delhi Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income and made a claim under Section 10B in respect of 50% of the production of the earlier year claiming to be treated as having been outsourced to non-EOU unit. Subsequently, the assessee claimed 100% deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 6.1 Thus the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that when the assessee has failed to establish that the production has been carried out in the EOU unit, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee set up a 100% EOU in the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the Assessment Year 2007-08. This fact has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in para 4 of the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee from the lease area which has been approved as 100% EOU and the same was processed by Sesa Plant which is located outside bonded area of EOU. Therefore the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) considered the production being the process of iron ore from Sesa Plant as production / manufactured from non-EOU unit. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier assessment year i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08 2008-09, the assessee was not having this Sesa Plant as it was purchased on 31.3.2008 and was put to use in the month of April, 2008 relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10. Thus the assessee was getting its iron ore processed through outsourcing of job work and consequently as per the provisions of foreign trade policy, sub-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), in para 21 as under : 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above as well as the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as well as Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we are of the view that the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act cannot be denied merely on the ground that the iron ore excavated from the mining area belonging to EOU got processed through its plant and machinery located outside the bonded area. Further the raw material as well as the finished product both belong to assessee and exported by the assessee therefore, there is no violation of any condition as provided under Section 10B of the Act for claim of benefit of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
