9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Divisional Level Committee on 30.10.02. The review filed under Rule 25(3)(C) of the Rules framed under the Act was rejected on 29.9.03. The appeal preferred by the assessee to the tribunal against the rejection of the exemption application as well as the review application was dismissed on 27.2.04. Thus, the assessee has preferred this revision challenging the order of the tribunal dated 27.2.04 and the rejection of his exemption application. It is admitted to the parties that as per the notification dated 15.1.2000, those units who have applied for term loan to the bank or to Central or State Government financial authorities on or before 17.1.2000 alone are admissible for grant of tax exemption under Section 4-A of the Act. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actually applied for the term loan on 1.5.2000 and not on 5.1.2000. The tribunal has non-suited the assessee basically on two grounds. First that in the exemption application filed by the assessee on 24.7.2000, there is no reference of the application for term loan dated 5.1.2000 and secondly the certificate issued by the bank that the application for term loan was submitted on 5.1.2000 does not bear any dispatch number and as such is not worth reliable. A bare perusal of the two applications alleged to have been submitted by the assessee for grant of term loan which have been filed by the revenue along with the counter affidavit reveals that the application dated 5.1.2000 is for a term loan of Rs.1,52,000/- and a cash credit limit of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee should have mentioned about the filing of the application for the grant of term loan is not tenable inasmuch as the said column does not prescribe for mentioning such details. The disclosure by the assessee that the unit is self-financed could not be said to be in any way faulty or incorrect. The certificate issued by the bank dated 30.6.2000 is not said to be fake or fictitious. It has not been relied by the tribunal only for the reason that it does not bear the dispatch number. Generally, only in letters or correspondence details of dispatch etc. are mentioned but not in certificates which are ordinarily handled personally without requiring the formality of dispatch. The bank is not disputing the said certificate nor any mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
