The Commissioner Of Income Tax I, Ludhiana v. M/S Impel Forge And Allied Industries Limited, Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.543 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.12.2008 The Commissioner of Income tax I, Ludhiana Vs. -----appellant M/s Impel forge and Allied Industries Limited, Ludhiana --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench‘B’, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.316/CHANDI/2005 dated18.10.2007, for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raisefollowing substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon’ble IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding thatdeduction under section 80IB is permissible on income derived from processing activities as processingactivities do not constitute manufacture of a product?” 2. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and tradingof tractor and auto parts and also doing job work of similar nature.It claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act and incomefrom job work, which was partly allowed by the Assessing Officer.On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the plea of the assessee, which hasbeen affirmed by the Tribunal. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4.Only contention raised on behalf of the revenue is thatthe assessee may be entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of income derived from its own manufacturing butthe said deduction was not admissible for the job work done forothers. 5.Reference to section 80IB of the Act shows that onlyrequirement for its applicability is deriving of income frombusiness referred to in sub sections 3 to 11, 11A and 11B of theAct, apart from other conditions with which we are not concerned.It is not the case of the revenue that the business of the assesseedoes not fall under sub sections 3 to 11, 11A or 11B of the Act.The assessee is at liberty to do manufacture for itself or for others,which makes no difference for purposes of Section 80IB of the Act. The Tribunal has also relied upon similar view taken by Delhi High Court inCIT v. Northern Aeromatics Limited, (2005) 196CTR (Delhi) 479. 6.Since the view taken by the Tribunal is clearlysupported by bare language of the Statute, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 7.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)Judge December 5, 2008‘gs’ (L.N.Mittal)Judge