TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to be concluded – as per the decision the assessee is fully entitled to gent deduction u/s 80IB of the Act – thus, the miscellaneous application is allowed – Decided in favour of Assessee. - M.A. No. 16/Ahd/2014 (in ITA No. 1452/Ahd/2009) - - - Dated:- 16-5-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri O. P. Bhateja, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R. ORDER Per : Shri T. R. Meena, Accountant Member This Misc. Application is filed by the assessee against the Tribunal s order dated 22.02.2013 in ITA No. 1452/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07. In this case assessee s appeal was dismissed. 2. Now assessee filed M.A. on 28.01.2014 which are reproduced as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer rejecting the claim of the appellant for deduction of Rs.28,58,822/- u/s 80IB of the Act even though your appellant has satisfied all the conditions prescribed u/s 80IB of the I. T. Act, 1961. 03. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Surat has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in concluding that the factory has begun manufacturing activity on 19/05/04 solely on the basis of date of issue of Factory License obtained under the Factories Act. 04. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Surat has erred in confirming the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Tribunal itself. The same is, therefore a mistake apparent from record. 5. As regards the second apparent error, the short count on which the Id. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in denying the deduction u/s 80IB was that since the Factory's License was issued to the appellant by the Chief inspector of the Factory on 19/05/04, it could not have started the manufacturing activity on or before 31/03/04 as is essential for claiming deduction u/s 80IB and accordingly, the appellant was not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. In fact, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a factual finding at Para 2.3.1 on Pgs.3 4 of his order which has been reproduced by this Hon'ble Tribunal on page 6 of its order that there was no disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to framing of an assessment without any Show Cause Notice. In the given case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has gone beyond the grounds of the appeal, findings of CIT(A) and observations made by AO. Such an act is therefore, a mistake apparent from record. 8. The appellant most respectfully submits that the conclusions of Hon'ble Tribunal are based upon the issues never argued, raised or disputed during the hearing as the same were not in disputed as held by C1T(A). The findings recorded by Hon'ble Tribunal are in gross violation of principals of natural justice as the same have been recorded without affording any opportunity to the assessee to rebut. The appellant relies upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the following cases: Mercury Metals (P) Ltd vs. ACIT - 257 ITR 297 (Guj) Rameshchandra M Luthra vs. ACIT - 257 ITR 460 (Guj) 9. Further non-consideration of decision of Supreme Court and jurisdictional high court decision is always a mistake apparent from record. 10. It is respectfully submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be recalled and the appeal may kindly be re-fixed for hearing so as to ensure that all the grounds raised by the appellant are dealt with properly and a logical and speaking order is passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal with requisite factual findings. It is respectfully submitted that in the larger interest of justice, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
