Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Shree Pushkar Chemicals & Fertilisers ... vs Dcit 7(2), Mumbai on 30 May, 2019 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण "E" न्यायपीठ मुंबई में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5388/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 201011) Shree Puskhar Chemicals बिाम/ DCIT 7(2) & Fertilisers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 202A Wing, v. Mumbai Building No. 3, Rahul Mittal Industrial Estate, Sir M V Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं ./ PAN: AAACS9372E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri. V. K. Chaturvedi (DR) सन ु वाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 09.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदे श / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 5388/Mum/2016, is directed against appellate order dated 28.06.2016 in appeal no. CIT(A)14/IT108/201213, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)14, Mumbai (hereinafter called ―the CIT(A)‖), for assessment year 201011, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 09.01.2013 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called ―the AO‖) u/s 143(3) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ―the Act‖) for AY 201011. I.T.A. No.5388/Mum/2016 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called ―the tribunal‖) read as under: ―1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming rejection made by the Assessing Officer of deduction under section 80IB of the Act of Rs. 2507133/. Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and regard being had to facts of the case deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act should not have been rejected. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming order made under section 143(3) of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer which is illegal, badinlaw, ultra vires and without allowing reasonable opportunity of the hearing, without appreciating facts, submission and evidences in their proper perspective, and liable to be annulled. 3. The learned assessing officer erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and / or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.‖ 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing & trading of dyes and dyes intermediates . The solitary issue in this appeal before the tribunal is with respect to allowability of deduction to the tune of Rs. 25,07,133/ u/s. 80IB of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that total value of investment in Plant & Machinery in small scale industrial undertaking contemplated u/s. 80IB(3)(ii) was Rs. 13,84,69,072/ , while the benefit of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB can be granted only to small scale industrial undertaking if investment in Plant & Machinery is less than Rs. 1 crore and hence the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the 1961 Act as the assessee is not an SSI unit. Without prejudice, the AO also observed that the 2 I.T.A. No.5388/Mum/2016 assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(5) of the 1961 Act as the unit is not located in any notified backward area. The AO , thus, disallowed the said claim of deduction raised by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 25,07,133/ u/s 80IB of the 1961 Act and the same was added back to the income of the assessee by AO , vide assessment order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO vide assessment order dated 09.01.2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) which stood dismissed by Ld. CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 28.06.2016, by holding as under: ― 5.2 I have considered the submissions made. The appellant submitted that the amount of investment has now been increased to