Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for Assessment Years 2005-06 and A.Y. 2004-05 vide his orders dated 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2009 respectively. 2. Appeal for AY 2005-06 is delayed by 03 days and appeal for AY 2004-05 is delayed by 11 days. Revenue has filed condonation petition along with affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay in above two appeals. Since Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not raise any objection, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The only common issue in these two appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) allowing exemption u/s. 80IP of the Act. The following are the grounds in both the years: "AY 2005-06: 1)That the Ld. CIT(A)-XXX, Kolkata has erred in allowing the 100% claim of exemption u/s. 80IB of the I. T. Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from where the assessee is carrying on manufacturing activity (allegedly) the business premises could not be verified from the available documents. The AO disallowed by observing as under: "Considering the above anomalies and in view of the points raised, it is crystal clear that the assessee firm did not confirm any specific premise number as their manufacturing premise. The submission is highly puzzling and dumbfounding. And upon examination of all transactions and submission of documents that have been filed for the firm, carrying of business activities and also existence of proper business premises could not be adduced from the available evidences and documents. In view of above findings, it could not be established that any manufactu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... O has rejected the various evidences produced by the Appellant in the form of Registrations and licenses obtained by the firm from different Government depatments, however the AO has without making any fresh enquiries or bringing on record any fresh evidences has without even cross verifying these evidences once again has relied on the report of JDIT(Inv), Surat and the alleged discrepancy regarding the address of the unit to hold that the Appellant has tried to camouflage from the IT Department the non-existence of the firm. 4.1. It is further seen that in the re-assessment proceedings also, the AO has not bothered to cross verify or examined the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the Appellant to establish the existence of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quiry had been conducted by the JDIT after a lapse of time by which Appellant shifted the business and hence no operation was noticed at the premises. This is clear from the fact that the accounting period is F.Y. 2004-05 whereas the enquiry was marked for investigation in August, 2007. Therefore, since the enquiry was conducted at a later date it cannot be the sole basis for concluding that the firm or manufacturing activity of the firm did not exit at the relevant point of time. 4.2. On the other hand the Appellant in reply to the queries raised in reassessment proceedings has given its submissíon to the AO vide letter dt 7.9.2010. The evidences fìled along wíth this letter íncluded Pollution Control Certif&ig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s simply ignored even the evidence fìled in reassessment proceedings whereas it is seen that the onus of establishing the existence of the firm has been discharged by the Appellant in reassessment proceedings. The AO on the other hand has neither cross verified these evidence nor brought anything on record to establish the allegation of non-genuineness of the fÌrm and its manufacturing activities. The AO was not justifying in claiming the Appellant has not discharged its burden to establish the existence of the firm and the genuineness of manufacturing activities. On the other hand the AO has not brought concrete evidnce on record to establish his allegation about no genuineness of the activities which he has failed to do. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates