TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the petitioner is correct. The petitioner’s product does not fall within the negative list stipulated in the 13th schedule of the said Act. If that be the case, then, the answer given by the petitioner in serial No. 14(ii)(e) of form 10 CCB filed along with the return is not wrong, false or inaccurate. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to have failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for its assessment. Insofar as the other assessment years are concerned where the issue of limitation of four years does not arise, the position would not be any different because on a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of section 80-IC(2) read with serial No. 20 of the 13th schedule of the said Act read with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -08 is concerned, a regular assessment had not been completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and only an intimation under section 143(1) had been sent. As regards the other three years, assessment orders had been framed under section 143(3) of the said Act. 2. In assessment year 2005-06, the assessment was framed on 29.03.2007. Similarly, for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 the assessment orders were passed on 26.12.2008 and 30.12.2010, respectively. It should also be pointed out that insofar as the impugned notices relate to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, they have been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the respective assessment years and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see claimed deduction u/s 80IC on the ground that he had undertaken substantial expansion in Plant Machinery during F.Y.2004-05. In support of this claim, Assessee filed audit report u/s 80IC on Form No. IOCCB along with his Return of Income for AY 2005-2006 placed on record. The claim of the assessee being in respect of manufacturing of pet bottles in the state of Himachal Pradesh ;pet bottles being an article specified in the Thirteenth Schedule (Sr. No. 20) Assessee was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 26,36,700/- u/s 80 IC despite which Assessee claimed deduction u/s 801C (Form No. 10 CCB), in col. 14(ii)(e)- "Does the undertaking or enterprise manufacture of produce any article or thing specified in the Thirteenth Schedule". Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Act. 6. Serial 20 of the 13th schedule to the Income-tax Act reads as under:- Activity or article or thing Excise classification Sub-class under National Industrial Classification (NIC), 1998 xxx xxx xxx 20. Plastics and articles thereof 39.09 to 39.15 It is clear from the above that the plastics and articles which are referred to at serial No. 20 of the 13th schedule pertain to the goods falling within the excise classification in the range of 39.09 to 39.15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the PET bottles manufactured by the petitioner fell within chapter 39 but under heading 39.23 and sub heading 3923.30.90. The heading 3923.30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had specifically noted as under:- the assessee has filed necessary evidences It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that prior to the completion of the assessment, several letters including the letters dated 27.12.2006, 13.03.2007 and 23.03.2007 had been written by the petitioner to the assessing officer explaining, inter alia, the claim for deduction under section 80-IC. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the objections which were taken by the petitioner to the purported reasons for re-opening of the assessment. In the objections the petitioner had specifically taken the plea that the 13th schedule of the said Act and, particularly, serial No. 20 thereof has been misrepresented by the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be the case, then, the answer given by the petitioner in serial No. 14(ii)(e) of form 10 CCB filed along with the return is not wrong, false or inaccurate. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to have failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for its assessment. 10. Insofar as the other assessment years are concerned where the issue of limitation of four years does not arise, the position would not be any different. This would be so because on a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of section 80-IC(2) read with serial No. 20 of the 13th schedule of the said Act read with the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, it would be clear that the petitioner s product does not fall within the neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
