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 1317 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80-IB at Silvassa unit - proof of manufacturing or production of electrical generators - HELD THAT:- As per JACKSON ENGINEERS LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 649 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the activity involving assembling of various components and achieving a final product of a generator amounts to manufacture or production of an article or thing within the meaning of section 80-IB of the Act. Moreover as in the case of Tata Locomotive And Engineering Company Limited [1967 (2) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has also held that assembling of various components which results into a different product which is distinct then the individual components, such an activity amounts to manufacture or production. As a consequence, we therefore do not agree with the first objection of the Assessing Officer to deny assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80-IB(4) of the Act. Thus, on this aspect assessee succeeds. Silvassa unit of the assessee did not begin to manufacture or produce the Generators before 31.03.2004. - Assessing Officer relied upon the statement of the transporter to infer that there was neither transportation of raw material to Silvassa unit and nor the manufactured generator set was transported from Silvassa unit to M/s SNA Industries, Chakan Pune - need for cross-examination - HELD THAT: Ostensibly, there are apparent contradictions in the statements furnished by the transporter at the different points of time. The assessee pointed out that earlier it had contended that due to the contradictory position taken by the transporter a report of the handwriting expert be called for to establish as to whether the signature on the transport bills were that of Shri Padwal or not. It was also asserted by the assessee that the cross-examination would not serve any purpose when the appropriate preparation was not possible at a short notice. No doubt, technically speaking, an opportunity was allowed to the assessee to cross-examine the transporter. The assessment order has been passed on 31.12.2010 and obviously the cross-examination opportunity was allowed at the fagend of the proceedings. Of-course, one of the reasons for the cross-examination to be allowed at the fagend was that the investigation itself were started late by the Assessing Officer. But the moot question is that can it be conclusively established on the basis of the apparently inconsistent stand of the transporter that there was no transaction effected with M/s Kavita Industries Pvt. Ltd. or M/s SNA Industries prior to 31.03.2004. In-fact, in the Excise return furnished by the assessee, a copy of which has been placed at pages 131 to 132 of the Paper Book, it is revealed that assessee returned the quantity manufactured and also showed its liability for excise duty on the quantity manufactured and sold. The said return of income is dated 05.04.2004 and at the time of hearing, the original copies of the said were also called for and perused. The said return corresponded to the quarter ending on 31.03.2004. The reflection of quantity of goods manufactured and liability of excise duty thereof in the said return has not been disapproved by the Revenue at any stage. There is also no reason for us to disregard the same. Nevertheless, it is also emerging that so far as the evidence of transportation is concerned it does not clinchingly establish the case either way. It was not only imperative but also prudent that the cross-examination of the transporter was undertaken so as to enable the Assessing Officer to come to appropriate findings.
|