We have heard Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel assisted by Ms.Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel for appellant. 2. This tax appeal has been filed on the following two proposed substantial questions of law.
“[A]. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing assessee deduction u/s 80IB of I.T. Act without considering that the conditions laid down u/s 80IB of I.T.Act have not been fulfilled?
[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing assessee deduction of salary amount of Rs.1,50,000/ being not actually spent?
[C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the view of AO that in view of sectioned 80AB no profit from Industrial undertaking is included in the gross total income and hence such deduction would not be permissible?”
3. Under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act if the assessee has ten or more workers then assessee is entitled to claim of deduction. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee was not having more than 10 workers. This finding recorded by the Assessing Officer has been reversed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). After analyzing statement recorded by the Assessing Officer during the course of survey and inspection report of the Factory Inspector on two accounts. In the inspection report of ESI Inspector, number of workmen and names of workmen engaged in the unit had been mentioned. The CIT (Appeal) came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer only considered workers engaged in one unit whereas the assessee had another washing unit having same activity. Therefore, the workers engaged in total washing unit was also required to be considered while computing total number of workers employed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeal) also found that wages register, attendance register and inspection reports of ESI Inspector also supports the version of the assessee. Therefore, CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 200304 and Assessment Year 200607. The Appeal filed by the revenue has been dismissed by the Tribunal being agreed with the view taken by the CIT (A).
4. After hearing learned counsel for the Revenue, we do not find that the question raised by the Revenue raises any substantial question of law. The appeals are concluded finding of fact and accordingly these Tax Appeal are dismissed.
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Amit [N. V. ANJARIA, J.]