TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion u/s 10A to the assessee in these years. In the above facts and circumstances of the case order of the CIT(A) is supported by the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Ektara Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2005 (7) TMI 607 - ITAT KOLKATA) and that the AO himself has allowed deduction u/s 10A to the assessee in therefore find no infirmity to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal is dismissed. In favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2011 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2013 - Sri N. S. Saini AM And Sri Mahavir Singh, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Dilip Kumar Rakshit, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri J. P. Khaitan Shri Sanjay Modi ORDER Per Shri N. S. Saini, AM. These are appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of ld. CIT(A)- XXX, Kolkata both dated 29.09.2010 passed in A.Yrs. 2003-04 and 2005-06. 2. We first take up the appeal for A.Yr. 2003-04. The sole issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the reassessment proceedings as invalid simply on the ground that re-assessment proceedings was initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B is admissible only if the accounts of the undertaking have been audited by a Chartered Accountant and the audit report in the form 10CCB is duly signed and verified by such an accountant is furnished along with return of income, but the audit report in form 10CCB was not furnished by the assessee along with the return. Moreover the deduction was not allowed by the accountant in Form 3CD annexed to the Audit Report u/s 44AB. Hence the amount of profit of Rs.22,92,254/- allowed u/s 80IB was not qualified for deduction, therefore I have reasons to believe that income as mentioned above has escaped assessment." 6.1. We find that it is not in dispute that the assessment year in question is assessment year 2003-04 and notice for reopening u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2008 which is beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in question. Proviso to section 147 provides that reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can be made where the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. A reading of the above recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before us a copy of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2008. 10.1. The ld. AR also submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year 2004-05 deduction u/s 10A of the Act was allowed to the assessee in an order passed u/s 143(3) on 28.12.2006 and filed before us a copy of the assessment order. He further submitted that the deduction u/s 10A of the Act was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) by following the order of the Kolkata 'A' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Ektata Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO.1046/Kol/2005 reported in 152 Taxman 18. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of the garments. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act of Rs.59,09,552/-. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction to the assessee observing that the assessee has not produced the evidences for purchase of needles, threads, blue stickers and ironing etc. and therefore the assessee was not doing manufacturing but trading of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us and have perused the orders of the tax authorities. We have also considered the paper book filed by the assessee and the decisions cited before us. The A.O. in this case has disallowed the claim of the assesee under section 10A presuming that the assessee is not involved in the manufacturing process as it was only doing labeling, ironing and packing of the finished readymade garments purchased from M/s.Arihant Garments, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee considering the licence granted to assesee-company by the Development Commissioner of such EPZ. Circular of Excise Department and Income Tax Department, decision in case of Metro Ready Wear Company (supra) and considering the fact that at least some of the processes alveit the minor works, such as fixing of labels, stitching of buttons, ironing and packing were done at the premises of the assessee and these processes were essential activity to enable the assessee to export the goods." With above observations the ITAT held that the appellant was in fact involved in process of manufacturing and upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing exemption u/s 10A of the Act to the appellant. In the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
