The Commissioner Of Income Tax-24 v. Income Tax Appeal

mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.339 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-24Mumbai.AppellantversusM/s.Kewalkiran EnterprisesRespondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.235 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-24Mumbai.AppellantversusM/s.Kewalkiran EnterprisesRespondent Mr.R.Asdkan, APP for appellant.None for respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI ANDA.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ.DATE : 12th August 2008 PC : 1. Both the appeals raise same questions.Therefore, they are being disposed off bycommon order. 2. Following questions are framed. a) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theHon’ble Tribunal erred in confirming the orderof CIT(A) in holding that the assessee isentitled to deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too withoutappreciating that the addition on similar pointin earlier years were upheld by the CIT(A). b) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the learned CIT(A) has erred on factsand in law in allowing the claim for deductionunder section 80IA ignoring the facts thatalmost the entire manufacturing activity of"Jeans" was carried out at Goregaon in Mumbai,which is not an industrially backward area andonly the finishing process on the "Jeans" wascarried on at Daman a notified backward area inUnion Territory? c) Whether the learned ITA(A) Tribunal, MumbaiBench ‘J’ justified in non-considering thereliance placed on record by way of variouscitations in support of the case of theDepartment for deduction under section 80-IA ofthe said Act as per the Assessing Officer’sdecision? d) Whether the learned Tribunal was justifiedin rejecting the submissions of therepresentative of the Appellant in view of theissue covered by their own Tribunal decision inthe Assessee’s case for year 1998-1999. 3. Essentially the question is whether thejeans manufactured by assessee were beingmanufactured in Daman (Backward area) or inState of Maharashtra? 4. Had they been manufactured at Daman(Backward area), they would have been entitledto get benefits under section 80(i)(a) of theIncome Tax Act. This benefit would not beavailable to them if the jeans are manufacturedat Mumbai. 5. Essentially this is a question of fact andthe Tribunal has come to the conclusion thatthe manufacturing took place at Damn.Therefore, no question of law arises. 6. Appeal is dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)