Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Shree Balaji Alloys,, Jammu vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 December, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND SH. D.K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. Nos.177 &178(Asr)/2011
Assessment years:2006-07 & 2007-08
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Amar Nath Industries,
Kathua. Kathua.
PAN:AALFA2995D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.182(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2008-09
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Ajay Gupta Prop.
Ward 1(1), Jammu. M/s. Print Pack,
Jammu
PAN:AAXPG3090R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.183(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Jhelum Industries,
Ward 1(1), Jammu. Samba, Jammu.
PAN:AAEFJ9788L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.185(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2005-06
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. J.K. Oil Industries,
Circle-1, Jammu. Gangyal, Jammu.
2
PAN:AADFJ1948B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.186(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
D.C.I.T. Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sharma,
Circle-1, Jammu. Prop. Payal Enterprises,
Gangyal, Jammu.
PAN:AAEPG4460C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.187(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2006-07
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. Kashmir Udyog,
Circle-1, Jammu. Gangyal, Jammu.
PAN:AADFK9880Y
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.190(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2008-09
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s.Kashmir Wires,
Circle-1, Jammu. Bari Brahmna, Jammu.
PAN:AAHFK5280
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.191(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
D.C.I.T. Vs. Sh. Mahesh Chand Goyal
Circle-1, Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AAEPG4460C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.192(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2006-07
3
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. Trikuta Steel Rolling Mills
Circle-1, Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AAAFT8274D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.193(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2006-07
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Bhagwati Metal Works
Kathua Kathua.
PAN:AAGFB0925K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.194(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Swastik Industries,
Kathua. Kathua.
PAN:AAZFS7492R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.195(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. G-Tech Industries,
Kathua. Kathua.
PAN:AAGFG2339E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.198(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. Vee El Cee Industries
Circle-1, Jammu. Bari Brahamna, Jammu.
PAN:AAFFV6250N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
4
I.T.A. No.199(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2008-09
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s.Pun Spinners,
Ward 1(2), Jammu. Bari Brahamna, Jammu.
PAN:AAJFP1327Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.200(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2004-05
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Kashmir Handloom Handicraft,
Ward 1(2), Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AAGFK3553J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.202(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Khazana Corporation,
Ward 1(2), Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AAHFK3642F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.204(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2008-09
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Master India, Phase -1,
Ward 1(2), Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AMFM7080N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.253 & 254(Asr)/2011
Assessment years:2007-08 & 2008-09
5
D.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Manju Aggarwal,
Circle-1, Jammu. Kathua.
PAN:ADJPA6979L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.255(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
D.C.I.T. Vs. Sh. Rakesh Pal Shastri,
Circle-1, Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AEGPS6954R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.222(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2008-09
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. J & K Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd.
Circle-1, Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AADCM0855D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.223(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. Narbada Industries,
Circle-1, Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AAFFN8572K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.224& 225(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08 & 2008-09
6
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. Shree BalajiAlloys,
Circle-1, Jammu. Kathua.
PAN:AAXFS8056R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.226(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2006-07
D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s. Samrat Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Circle-1, Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AACCS4758K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.228(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2006-07
Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Vijay Steel Industries,
Ward-1(3), Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AAFFVZ2839P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.229(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2008-09
Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Shiv Giri Metal Industries,
Ward-1(3), Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:ABCFS1968A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.231(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2008-09
Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Balaji Udyog
Ward-1(3), Jammu. Jammu.
PAN:AABFU6419N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
7
I.T.A. No.233(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. V.K. Jain, Prop.
Ward-1(3), Jammu. M/s. V.K. Metal Works,
Jammu.
PAN:ACEPS5319L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By: Sh. Tarsem Lal
Respondents By: None
Date of hearing :09.12.2011
Date of pronouncement:09.12.2011
ORDER
PER BENCH:
These thirty appeals by the Revenue involving common issue were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. The common grounds of appeals are as under:-
"1 On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing relief on account of deduction u/s 80IB on Central Excise Duty refund by relying upon orders of Hon'ble High Court if J&K, Jammu which has been delivered not on merits of the issue but holding the receipt to be a capital receipt only because the policy under which the same was paid envisaged tackling the unemployment 8 in the State which cannot be said to be a good test for deciding whether a receipt is a trading receipt or a capital receipt.
2. On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in facts and circumstances and in law in not appreciating the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ponni Sugar & Sawhney Steel and press works Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held such receipts to be the revenue receipts in as much as in that case payments were made only after the industries had been set up and payments were not made for purpose of setting up of industries.
3. On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in facts and circumstances and in law in not considering the decision in the case of Seaham Harbour Dock Company which lays down two important tests for determining whether receipts is a trading receipt or a capital receipt.
4. On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in facts and circumstances and in law in not appreciating and applied the purpose test as laid down by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of assessee, the money received by the assessee on account of refund of Central Excise was not supposed to be spent in a particular manner for purpose of substantial expansion of the industry.
5. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal."
3. Briefly, the grounds No. 1 to 5 revolve around the issue of Excise Duty refund which was claimed as exempt in view of Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') being allowable to the assessee. The AO has not allowed the claim of the assessee and held that the receipts on account of Excise Duty refund granted in view of Government Notification was not eligible to be considered for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
94. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Allows v. CIT and Another (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) held that the Excise Duty refund is to be treated as 'capital receipt' and not liable to be taxed. Now the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
5. We have heard Sh. Tarsem Lal, the Ld. DR, at length. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Allows v. CIT and Another (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K). The issues before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for determination were as under:-
(1) Whether the amount of excise refund and interest subsidy received by the appellants-assessees, in pursuance of the incentives announced and sanctioned vide Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion)'s Office Memorandum No. 1(13)2000-NER dated June 14,2002 and Central Excise Notification Nos. 56 and 57, dated November 14, 2002 and other notification issued on the subject, pertaining to the industrial policy introduced in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is a capital receipt and, thus, not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act, or revenue receipt, as opined by the authorities under the Act?
(2) Whether the appellants-assessees are entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the excise duty refund and interest subsidy etc., being the income derived from the industrial undertaking, in case the excise refund and interest subsidy were found to be revenue receipt.10
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir while deciding the matter has discussed the salient features of the new industrial policy, amendments introduced thereto and statutory notification etc. The Hon'ble High Court further discussed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd (1997) 228 ITR 253 (S.C) and observed as under:-
"26 A perusal of the Office Memorandum dated June 14, 2002 indicating new industrial policy and other concessions for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, makes it explicit that the concessions were issued to achieve twin objects viz. (i) acceleration of industrial development in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which had been found lagging behind in such development, and (ii) generation of employment in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
27 Amendment introduced to the Office Memorandum vide notification of November 28, 2003 of the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) eloquently demonstrates the Central Goverenment's intention in extending the incentives. The Government's objective, as conveyed by the Hon'ble Prime Minister a Srinagar on April 19, 2003, was, for creation of one lakh employment and self-employment opportunities in Jammu and Kashmir State.
28 To achieve the purpose and objective referred to hereinabove, it was, inter alia, provided in the central excise notifications that the exemptions contained in the notifications would be available only on production of certificate from general manager of the concerned District Industries Centre to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, to the effect that the unit had created required additional regular employment, which would not, however, include employment provided by the industrial units to daily wagers or casual employees engaged in the units.11
29 A close reading of the Office Memorandum and the amendment introduced thereto with paragraph No. 3 appearing in the Central Excise Notification Nos. 56 and 57 of November 11, 2002, thus, makes it amply clear that the acceleration of development of industries in the State was contemplated with the object of generation of employment in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the generation of employment, so, contemplated, was not only casual or temporary; but was on the other hand, of permanent nature.
30 Considered thus, the paramount consideration of the Central Government in providing the incentives to the new industrial units and substantial expansion of the existing units, was the generation of employment through acceleration of industrial development, to deal with the social problem of unemployment in the State, additionally creating opportunities for self-employment, hence a purpose in public interest.
31 In this view of the matter, the incentives provided to the industrial units, in terms of the new industrial policy, for accelerated industrial development in the State, for creation of such industrial atmosphere and environment, which would provide additional permanent source of employment to the unemployed in he State of Jammu and Kashmir, were in fact, in the nature of creation of new assets of industrial atmosphere and environment, having the potential of employment generation to achieve a social object. Such incentives, designed to achieve public purpose, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of assesses alone.
32 Thus, looking to the purpose, of eradication of the social problem of unemployment in the State by acceleration of the industrial development and removing backwardness of the area that lagged behind in industrial development, which is certainly a purpose in the public interest, the incentives provided by the office memorandum and statutory notifications issued in this behalf, to the appellants-assessees, cannot be construed as mere production and trade incentives, as held by the Tribunal.
33. Making of additional provision in the scheme that incentives would become available to the industrial units, entitled thereto, from 12 the date of commencement of the commercial production, and that these were not required for creation of new assets cannot be viewed in isolation, to treat the incentives as production incentives, as held by the Tribunal, for the measure so taken, appears to have been intended to ensure that the incentives were made available only to the bona fide industrial units so that larger public interest of dealing with unemployment in the State, as intended, in terms of the Office Memorandum, was achieved.
34. The other factors, which had weighed with the Tribunal in determine the incentives as production incentives may not be decisive to determining the character of the incentive subsidies, when it is found, as demonstrated in the Office Memorandum, amendment introduced thereto and the statutory notification too that the incentives were provided with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated industrial development.
7. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court concluded as under:-
"35 For all what has been said above, the finding of the Tribunal on the first issue that the excise duty refund, interest subsidy and insurance subsidy were production incentives, hence revenue receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel Case (1997) 228 ITR 253 and Ponni Sugars case (2008) 306 ITR 392.
36 The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were revenue receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to the capital receipt in the hands of the assesses.
37 In view of our above finding on the first issue, there is no need to opine on the second issue, which was raised in the alternative."
8. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we confirm the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the 13 Excise Duty refund is to be treated as 'capital receipt' in the hands of the assessee and not liable to be taxed.
9. In the result, all the thirty appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th December, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (H.L. KARWA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Dated: 9th December, 2011
/SKR/
Copy of the order is forwarded to :
1. All the Assessees:
2. The
3. The CIT(A),
4. The CIT,
5. The SR DR
True copy
By Order
(Assistant Registrar)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Amritsar Bench : Amritsar.