TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of Assessing Officer restored. 3. After hearing both the parties, we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IC amounting to Rs. 55,70,119/-. On perusal of the balance sheet, it was noticed that details of plants and machinery were as under:- Opening balance of Plant & Machinery as on 01-04-2008 Rs. 42,82,528/- Addition before 30-09-2008 Rs. 19,380/- Addition after 30-09-2008 Rs. 4,85,478/- Total Value Rs. 47,87,386/- Less Deprecation Rs. 6,81,697/- Balance Rs. 41,05,689/- It was further noticed from the copies of the bills that machinery at the time of commencement of the business was purchased as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 5. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) allowed deduction by following her order for assessment year 2007-08. 6. In fact, it transpired during the course of hearing that deduction was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 but since the tax effect was less than the amount for which Revenue was not supposed to file appeal under the instructions, no appeal was filed by the Revenue. 7. Before us, Ld. DR strongly supported the order of Assessing Officer and submitted that assessee has failed to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer. No documentary evidence was filed to prove that machinery was not used previously . 8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that machines were imported by M/s S Printers Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer did not accept the same. The Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue through her appellate order, copy of which is placed at pages 47 to 50 of the paper book wherein vide paras 4 & 4.1 which are as under:- "4. The rival submissions have been carefully considered with reference to the facts of the case. It is noted that he appellant had duly submitted the bills of purchase of the machinery under consideration alongwith the copies of the bill of lading from U.S. National Lines INC. It had also submitted the affidavit from the Printers Park, from whom the said machinery was purchased wherein it was certified that the machinery was imported from USA for re-sale and that the machinery was not used for any kind of cutting or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame. They have got nothing to do with the printing in India after import M/s. Printers Park have also furnished a fresh affidavit dated 24.10.2011 to this effect to the Ld. A.O. As per the enquiries conducted from the O/o the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai, the IEC number is mandatory only at the time of the clearance of the imported goods, but the process of import, i.e. placing the order, filing of bill of lading etc. can take place even without an IEC number. It is noted that the imported goods in question were cleared after the receipt of the IEC number by M/s. Printers Park. Thus there is nothing on record to establish that the machines purchased by the appellant from M/s. Printers Park. which, in turn imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the assessee." Further, the explanation to section 80IC(4) reads as under:- "Explanation- The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause(ii) of this sub-section as they apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of that subsection." 12. Thus, through this clarification in respect of usage of plant and machinery u/s 80IC (4) has been adopted in as given in Explanation to section 80IA(3). The explanation makes it clear that plant which was used outside India by a person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as plant and machinery previously used for any purpose. Since in the case before us, the plant and machinery was never used within India, as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|