TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re CIT(A) and which were verified by issuing notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act - The AO also verified the transactions of purchase of machinery and sales as well as manufacturing of goods have been accepted – thus, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of assessee u/s. 80IB of the Act to the assessee being a manufacturing unit and all rules and regulations and necessary permission also obtained on the same plot – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A No. 126/Kol/2012, I.T.A No. 154/Kol/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2014 - Shri Mahavir Singh, JM Shri Abraham P. George, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JDIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: Both these ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing exemption u/s. 80IB involves substantial question of law of importance in this case, which was exclusively narrated in the assessment order itself. 4. At the outse, Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the issue of allowing deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Sharp Prints in ITA No. 135/K/2012 for AY 2005-06 ITA Nos. 157 158/K/2012, Ays 2004-05 2006-07 vide order dated 17.06.2013 exactly on similar facts. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings disallowed deduction claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s used colourable device to defraud revenue by claiming 100% deduction u/s. 80IB, hence, deduction claimed u/s. 80IB of the Act is a bogus claim. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act by observing in para 4, 4.1 and 4.2 as under: 4. The submissions in Appeal have been considered. The AO concluded that evidence of the existence of the business premises and carrying on of the business activities was not establihed therefore it was false claim for the existence of the firm itself. He concluded that on examination of the documents it could not be proved that the assessee carried on any manufacturing activity, that the address and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the plot no. and etc. which had been considered in original appeal and has not brought any fresh evidence on record. It may be mentioned here that these issues had already been considered in the appeal against the original order for A.Y 2005-06 by the CIT(A) and it was held that on the basis of various evidences including copies of electricity bills and certif cates of various government departments dealing with its business clearly prove that the manufacturing unit functioned from plot 38 and then from plot No. 39 and that the unit was eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.This had been arrived at after considering all issues including the matter of the Plot number which has again been explained in the re-assessment proceedings and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding sale purchase account, details of electricity charges, copy of application for registration as small scale undertaking etc. As mentiond earlier the AO has relied on minor discrepancies in respect of the plot no. of the Appellant to simply reject the evidences produced by the Appellant without bringing any positive evidence. It may be mentioned here that in the reassessment proceedings the appellant has once again explained the alleged discrepancies pointed out in the original assessment and on the basis of which the claim of the appellant had been disallowed including the alleged discrepacny of the manufactur ng units address and the conclusions of JDIT report. The Appellant has submitted detailed evidences before the AO which have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial undertaking, it is registered under Sales tax/VAT. It has also obtained electricity connection on the same address. The assessee contended that the lease of plot no. 39 (wrongly mentioned in the audit report as 3 no. of plots) was registered and copy of the same was filed before AO as well as before CIT(A). The assessee also produced details of sales and purchase invoice during the course of original assessment proceedings, during the course of set aside proceedings and even before CIT(A) and which were verified by issuing notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The AO also verified the transactions of purchase of machinery and sales as well as manufacturing of goods have been accepted. In such circumstances and the above evidences, we feel th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
