M.M. Kumar, J.

1 .The Revenue has approached this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity " the") challenging the order dated May 27, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench (for brevity "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 340(ASR)/2008 in respect of the assessment year 2003-04. The Tribunal has set aside the order dated August 28, 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (1) by exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of theholding that on the basis of survey report conducted under Section 133A of thethe assessment completed under Section 143(3) of theon November 14, 2005, by the Assessing Officer cannot be set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax by exercising revisional jurisdiction. In that regard, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the views taken by the Hyderabad Bench in the case of Sri Harishankar Cashew Manufacturing Co. v. ITO (1992) 42 ITD 466 [LQ/ITAT/1991/238] and the views of the Amritsar Bench in the case of Jolly Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO : (1982) 2 ITD 92 (Asr.) The aforesaid order of the Tribunal had attained finality as it is not pointed out that any appeal was filed or if filed the orders have been reversed. The Tribunal has also adversely commented on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax because he did not point out that any loss to the Revenue would arise and the order passed by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He has simply asked the Assessing Officer to re-examine the documents produced by the assessee whereas the Assessing Officer himself made detailed enquiry and had come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has opined that the power of revision could not have been exercised.

2. The Tribunal has also examined the merits of the issue raised before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In an answer to the query given by the assessee it was claimed that he is fully eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(4) of the. He further stated that the definition of small scale industries has been expanded under Section 80-IB(4) of the. The question considered by the Assessing Officer was whether it is indulging in manufacturing process or not. The assessee has been engaged in the production or manufacture of article or thing, i.e., components of tractors like differential housing, get box housing and rear cover housing. To the allegation that the assessee was engaged only in job work, the following questionanswer pro forma have been cited:

Question: Please explain the process of the components received after machining from Auto Component Indl. Corpn. Baddi, District Solan in details.

Answer: 1st operation, on the vertical machining centre on CNC machines.

On this CNC machine drilling, reaming chamfering, pad milling operations are being done, with respect to dowel hole on next machine boring machine/and taping.

After the above operation, rear cover will be ready for further assembly.

In assembly few important parts like ram cylinder, response ball, rock shaft etc. are fitted to complete this Sub-assembly. It is in respect of two type of rear covers received after receiving machine from Baddi.

Question: From the above it is clear that at Baddi very small machining/grinding of components is done, whereas major process is completed at ITL Hoshiarpur, please explain.

Answer: All critical machinery operation of chassis parts, i.e., rear cover, differential housing and reduction unit are being done at M/s. ITL Hoshiarpur on precision sophisticated CNC and other special purpose machines.

Question: Do you send the similar components for machining and grinding to other concern except Baddi

Answer: We do not send these three components for machining/grinding to any other concern/ place except Baddi.

Question: I am showing you one of twenty six photographs of the components and machinery and assembly process taken in your presence, please give the description of the same.

Answer: I have given the description at the back side of each photograph under my signature.

3. The Assessing Officer has given a categorical finding that the assessee is engaged in the process of manufacturing of products and accordingly he has granted concession under Section 80-IB of the. The Tribunal has placed reliance on a Judgment of the honble the Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT : (1977) 107 ITR 195. [LQ/SC/1977/53] In that case the assessee was engaged in the machining of raw-casting, heat treatment of raw-crank shaft and polishing of raw casting etc. and is therefore it has been held that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing or production of articles. Similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Perfect Liners : (1983) 142 ITR 654. The claim of the asses-see has been found to be genuine as the assessee has explained the various processes after the components are received from M/s. Auto Components Indl. Corporation, Baddi (Solan). It shows that after the receipt of components, the first operation undertaken by the assessee-respondent is the vertical machining centre on CNC machine which has been explained as under:

One this CNC machine drilling, reaming, chamfering, pad milling operation are being done, with respect to dowel hole on next machine boring machine/and tapping.

After the above operation, rear cover will be ready for further assembly.

In assembly, few important parts like ram cylinder, response ball, rock shaft etc. are fitted to complete the sub assembly. It is in respect of two type of rear covers received after receiving machine from Baddi.

In respect of differential housing and reduction unit, different sets of machines are there for further operation to make the component ready for assembly. As at present, these two components are not in stock, as such the working of the same cannot be shown.

4. Likewise major process is completed by the assessee-respondent and the same has been explained in answer to various questions.

All critical machinery operation of chassis parts i.e., rear cover, differential housing and reduction unit are being done at M/s ITL, Hoshiarpur on precision sophisticated CNC and other special purpose machines

5. The Assessing Officer has also examined the various workers of the assessee and have then recorded the finding which answer the provisions of Section 80-IB(4) of the.

6. Having heard the Learned Counsel at a considerable length, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity or give rise to any such substantive question of law which may warrant admission of the appeal. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax is wholly without any justification. It has rightly been held that change of opinion by reappraising the evidence is not within the parameter of revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.