Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1121 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - basic and crucial documents required for verification of claim u/s 10AA have neither been called for, nor verified and placed on record by the AO including the certificate issued by the Development Commissioner (SEZ) - relevant clause of section 10AA has not been mentioned for claiming deduction - Held that:- Our attention is drawn to audit reports filed along with return of income which contains relevant information about the establishment of SEZ Zone as to allowable claim. Annexure A enclosed thereto contends the date of registration, amount of export and other relevant information. Thus there is no merit in the allegation of the ld. CIT in this behalf. With these documents on record, we are unable to subscribe the view of the ld. CIT. The crucial documents were not asked by the AO not produced by the assessee. Form No. 56F and Annexure A thereto does not prescribe any mentioning of sub-clause. Besides, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan Fasteners (P) Ltd. (2014 (6) TMI 291 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ) held that non-mentioning of section and wrong mentioning of Section cannot come in the way of allowing claim which is otherwise eligible to the assessee. Since the requisite form does not require mentioning of sub-clause besides the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court does not consider it to be a requirement which can disentitle the assessee. Respectfully following Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgment we have to overrule this allegation. Apropos the inflated profits and expenditure, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that separate books of account for SEZ Unit are maintained along with profit and loss account , expenses vouchers etc. The books of account of the assessee have been upheld by the AO, ld. CIT has not considered upholding of the accounts by AO to be an error. This leads to a very vague situation when the books of account of the assessee are upheld and not challenged at the same time allegations are raised about contents thereof. The ld. CIT while passing the order u/s 263 of the Act has not referred to any other mistake. In consideration of the foregoing facts, we are of the view that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee
|