9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue and the cross- objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The Revenue in I. T. A. No. 779/Chd/2008 has raised the following grounds of appeal : "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,34,564 out of the total addition of Rs. 1,22,38,136 made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act. 2. That while allowing relief as mentioned in paragraph 1 above. (i) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in ignoring the evidence placed on record that all the purchases made by the assessee were made from Ludhiana and delivered at the address of sister concern at Ludhiana and not directly at the place of work at Parwanoo. (ii) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in ignoring the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he space available in the unit is too small to carry out any work for a turnover reaching Rs. 3.72 crores. (ix) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has totally ignored the statement of persons recorded outside the asses see's unit at Parwanoo where it has been stated that no work has been carried out at the business premises of the assessee neither any movement of vehicle for transport of goods has been seen nor any guard/chowkidar has been seen functioning at the place. (x) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in ignoring the evidence obtained from India Industrial Garments Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. a reputed concern in the field of sewing machine used for knitted purposes which clearly bring out the fact that the assessee concern did not fulfil the minimum sewing machine and labour requirement for carrying out the manufacturing so as to give turnover of Rs. 3.72 crores. (xi) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has cued in law find facts in ignoring the comparison of O.I, rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the deduction under section 80-IC(2)(a)(ii) whereas the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-IC(2)(b) in the assessment year under consideration as well as in the assessment year 2004-05 and assessment year 2006-07. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the deduction under section 80-IC(2)(a)(ii) as the assessee was manufacturing item other than those mentioned in Schedule XIV. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing deduction under section 80-IC(2)(a)(ii) whereas the assessee did not fulfil the condition laid down for claim of deduction under section 80-IC(2)(a)(ii), i.e., it is not located in any of the noti fied area." 5. The assessee in I. T. A. No. 762/Chd/2008 has raised the following grounds of appeal : "1. That the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, has erred in holding that profit of Rs. 25,03,572 included in the profit of Rs. 1,22,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) of the Act. The assessee had also reported in the said form that it had started operation on March 4, 2004, at Parwanoo (H.P.). The Assessing Officer made a visit to Parwanoo along with the Inspector on September 23, 2006. However, on reaching there, it was found that the assessee had closed down its business and some other business was being carried out by some other concern. The Assessing Officer made enquiries from the local people regarding the existence and working of the assessee at the said place. The statement of Shri Kapil Sood, branch incharge of H.P. Agro Industries Ltd., Parwanoo was recorded. Further enquiry from the Department of Industries, Parwanoo, was made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that before starting the operations at Parwanoo, eligibility certificate had to be obtained from the Department of Industries and the total details of machinery to be installed had to be submitted. The Assessing Officer tabulated the list of machinery installed in the premises at part of pages 8 and 9 of the assessment order and has also enclosed the photo copies of purchase bills of plant and machinery as annexure A-4 to the assessment order. As per the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer under table-4 at page 20 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer obtained the copies of invoices of sale bills of the said parties and the same are enclosed as annexure A-10 to the assessment order on which it is clearly mentioned that the goods were delivered at Ludhiana office and some of the goods were delivered to the address of the sister concern M/s. Octave Apparels at G.T.Road, Jalandhar Bypass. The Assessing Officer, thus concluded that all the raw material had been purchased from the parties at Ludhiana and where the assessee had no occupation or place of business. The Assessing Officer thus, questioned whether the raw material was ever delivered to the assessee. The Assessing Officer further observed that the goods were delivered at the sister concern of the assessee which was engaged in the same line of business. Further, the goods were knitted cloth, shirting and woven fabrics for carrying out the alleged manufacturing activity. The Assessing Officer thus questioned as to whether any manufacturing activity was carried out at Parwanoo unit. 10. The Assessing Officer also made enquiries from printing and bleaching house and the statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt Officers and SDMs and the replies received have been tabulated under table-7 at page 32 of the assessment order under which it was reported that some of the vehicles were light goods vehicles but the list also included the motorcycles, mini bus, LML scooter, etc. 12. The Assessing Officer, thereafter made enquiries regarding the manufacturing process and its requirement from one M/s. India Industrial Garments Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. at Ludhiana who was engaged in similar line of manufacturing. The Assessing Officer thereafter considered the list of machinery installed at Parwanoo and also the information from the Department of Industries, Parwanoo and observed that for carrying on the manufacturing activity, minimum of 26 to 30 machines were required whereas in the case of the assessee, there were only 13 sewing machines and the assessee has shown a turnover of Rs. 3.72 crores which was impossible to achieve by using 13 sewing machines. 13. Another exercise carried on by the Assessing Officer was the comparison of the results shown by M/s. Octave Exports, i.e., the assessee before us and its sister concern M/s. Octave Apparels. The Assessing Officer has tabulated the turnover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd after depreciation, the written down value as on March 31, 2003, has been worked out at Rs. 1,27,230, as against which the assessee had valued the said machinery at Rs. 9,500. The assessee, as on April 1, 2004, had machinery of Rs. 2,67,270 and if the total value of the old machinery is considered, then it is more than 20 per cent. of the total value of machinery. Further, as the assessee had carried out the printing and bleaching from Ludhiana which were not the places of exemption, hence the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. 16. The assessee was also show caused that Schedule XIV of the Income-tax Act provides the list of articles or things which are to be specifically manufactured for claim of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. In the case of the assessee, the specific item lies at S. No. 9 of paragraph "C" of Schedule XIV and the listed items is woven fabric and as such the assessee was not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. In reply to this show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee stated that "during the year we have claimed deduction under section 80-IC under sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference between the profit ratios of M/s. Octave Exports as compared to the sister concern, i.e., M/s. Octave Apparels though same work has been carried out at both places. (vii) The books have been rejected on grounds of discrepancies found and absence of stock details. The gist of legal infirmities is being provided below : (i) The value of old sewing machines in the business is more than 32 per cent. of the total value of plant and machinery. (ii) A part of the manufacturing process has been shown to be done out of the eligible place of business. (iii) The raw material being purchased is the same as the product which needs to be manufactured for claiming deduction under section 80-IC. So the claim of the assessee of deduction under section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act needs to be disallowed on legal grounds as well as the factual aberrations which have already been discussed in the body of the order above. 17. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -sheet for the financial year 2001-02. During the appellate proceedings and also before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had furnished the evidence of transport of the said machines from Ludhiana to Parwanoo and also the barrier receipts dated November 26, 2003, for transportation. The Assessing Officer had rejected the plea of the assessee in respect of the hand driven machines as on the date of inspection, only imported machines were found installed at the premises. The assessee, however, produced the evidence that in the photographs and the video clipping itself, the nature of the machinery can be determined that besides the imported machines, there were hand driven machines installed also. Further, the transportation receipts established the case of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was in agreement with the submissions of the assessee and held that it could not be presumed that only the machines installed as per the information given to the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, were the only machinery at Parwanoo unit. 19. Another adverse inference drawn by the Assessing Officer was on account of consumption of the electricity. The Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's unit as it was manufacturing T-shirts of different varieties. Since new product emerged, the assessee was held to be engaged in manufacturing activity. 22. The second aspect of the same issue was the delivery of the raw material at Ludhiana. As per the assessee, the said raw material before being sent to Parwanoo was checked/inspected by one of the partners at Ludhiana and dispatched on tempo load basis as per the requirements of Parwanoo unit. The said fact was also admitted by the partner Shri Balbir Kumar. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of the view that such delivery of the raw material at Ludhiana for checking purpose does not entitle the Assessing Officer to draw an adverse inference. Similarly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found no merit in the adverse inference drawn by the Assessing Officer on account of enquiries made from the printer and bleaching house which carried the job work at Ludhiana. The explanation of the assessee in this regard was that only approximately 5 per cent. of the T-shirts were sent for printing or bleaching and there was no question of making too many trips to Ludhiana for the purpose of. The observations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en 10 persons were working in the unit of the assessee. After considering the evidence filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that merely because the assessee had intimated 13 machines for start of project to the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, there was no bar to bring in other machines specially where the assessee had explained that 11 old machines had been transferred from the Ludhiana unit to Parwanoo unit. Further, the assessee also furnished the list of 30 workers with complete names and addresses and without making any enquiries, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the same and relying upon the statement of a third party, without allowing cross-examination to the assessee in respect thereof. 25. The Assessing Officer further had made enquiries in respect of the manufacturing process employed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had concluded on the basis of the said enquiries that for the purpose of achieving the turnover claimed to have been made by the assessee, minimum of 26 machines and 30 workers were required. However, in view of the intimation of 13 machines to the Director of Industries, HP and relying on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tand of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had lesser machinery than the sister concern was also not accepted in view of the enquiries made from IIGM which in-turn stated that the machineries used by the assessee were sufficient to give desired results. 27. The Assessing Officer had another objection as to the value of 11 old machines claimed to have been transferred from Ludhiana to Parwanoo. The assessee had declared the cost of the said machines at Rs. 9,500. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the nature of machines did not justify the price adopted by the assessee who estimated the value of such machines at Rs. 23,500 (approximate). The written down value of the said machines as on March 31, 2003, was calculated at Rs. 1,27,230. The Assessing Officer, therefore, observed that the value of the old machines being more than 32 per cent. of the total value of machinery as on March 31, 2003 at Rs. 3,94,500 was more than 20 per cent. of the value of the total machinery and hence, the assessee did not qualify for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. However, the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) claimed that it had on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned, the legitimate claim of deduction could not be denied to the assessee. Similar wrong claim was made by the assessee in the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07 also but in view of the explanation of the assessee and it not being in dispute that the assessee did qualify for deduction under section 80-IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, there was no reason to deny the said deduction to the assessee. The order of the Assessing Officer in this regard was thus, reversed. 29. The next objection raised by the Assessing Officer was that in the audit report, the assessee had mentioned that it was engaged both in trading and manufacture of readymade garments, and hence, no deduction on the traded goods had to be allowed under section 80-IC of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was that it had not carried out any trading of readymade garments during the year but was only engaged in the manufacture of garments and as such was entitled to deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the assessee had carried out trading activities held that the deduction claimed under section 80-IC of the Act coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide paragraphs 5.21 to 5.32 that some of the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer have been properly explained by the assessee and no addition is warranted in this regard. However, for some of the vehicles, there were duly stamped receipts available with of the assessee of Parwanoo barrier on the respective dates. However, the Commissioner Excise and Taxation, H.P. in the information sent by him to the Assessing Officer had categorically informed that none of the said vehicles crossed the barrier on the said dates. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has computed the total value of the raw material claimed to be transported through these vehicles at Rs. 45,33,495. Since the assessee had shown gross profit rate of 37 per cent. for the year under consideration, the cost of raw material of Rs. 45,33,495 as per the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would correspond to sales of Rs. 67,66,410. Thereafter, gross profit rate of 37 per cent. to the said sale was applied to compute the profit at Rs. 25,03,572 and it was held that the assessee was not entitled to claim of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act on the said income of Rs. 25,03,572. The Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tner used to inspect the cloth and other raw material for the purposes of manufacturing at Parwanoo and even, different other raw material from other suppliers were also bought and then combined goods were sent in a tempo. This was done because if the raw material was not found to be of the quality desired, the same should not be sent Parwanoo. Also if we collect the material at one point and dispatch in one temp load, it saves the freight. The Assessing Officer had made enquiries during the assessment proceedings from some of the parties, who had categorically stated that the goods were delivered at Ludhiana, though, the bills had been issued in the name Parwanoo unit with address of Parwanoo and the parties have confirmed the supply of the goods and even on the bill, the address is of Parwanoo. Reliance is being placed at annexure A-10, placed at pages 21 to 32 of the Assessing Officer's order and this modus operandi of the assessee is proved from the documentary evidences in respect of the fact that different items of raw material were collected at Ludhiana Office and sent by the assessee through tempo load. Kindl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oo, we have enclosed sample list of movement of vehicles with remarks at pages 59 to 91 along with evidences from pages 222 to 251, along with another chart at pages 252 to 253 and which has been doubted by the Assessing Officer, with remarks along with evidence up to page 306, which are documentary evidences and cannot be brushed aside. We have in our paper book at pages 59 to 91 given the computerised barrier receipts of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh along with copy of the relevant bills in respect of purchase of raw material and these computerised receipts are documentary evidences and cannot be brushed aside. Then again various other discrepancies are there in the information given by the Himachal barrier, goes to prove that information cannot be relied upon. How and under what circumstances, the information was given by Himachal authorities is not known to the assessee and that was confronted only at the fag end of limitation period, we have evidences that each vehicle crossed the barrier with matching entries of time with Mohali barrier. 4. 2(iv) Crossing of barriers at Parwanoo 5.21, 5.22 and 5.23 Our contentions are same as above and besides that regarding certain vehicl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement, he has given contradictory fact. 6. 2(vi) Installation of machinery and enquiries from the Director of Industries, HP 5.2 (a) When the unit was started initially, 13 machines were installed and subsequently, more machines were sent through transportation as per evidence of the same in the shape of declaration issued by the Excise and Taxation Department and evidence of passing such machines through barrier filed, copies of the bills, wherein type of passing the vehicle is also mentioned and finding of the Assessing Officer on the basis of his visit in September, 2006 is not relevant. The information to the industries department of 13 machines was given initially at the time of starting the unit and later on, there is no provision for giving the information of installation of more machines from time to time. (b) Reference may be made to pages 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 of the paper book-I. (c) As per balance-sheet as on March 31, 2004, value of machine was Rs. 3,05,452A as per page 10 of the paper book-I and as on March 31, 2005, further addition to the tune of Rs. 53,638 was made as per page 29 of the paper book. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shiva Export. Further, profits are reasonable taken into consideration the fact that there was no excise duty. 12. 2(xii) Comparison of machinery, viz., Sales (a) Comparison of machinery between the assessee and the Octave Apparels, it may be stated that M/s. Octave Apparels came into existence in 1991 and the turnover in assessment year 2005-06 is to the tune of Rs. 13,16,84,593 and the sales of the assessee were to the tune of Rs. 3,72,00,692. In Octave Apparels, many more other products were being manufactured and in the case of appellant, mainly T-shirts were being manufactured. (b) Besides that there can be no comparison of the assessee's unit with other unit because each unit have its own facts and installation of machinery has no relevant performance. 13. 2(xiii) Value of 11 old machines 5.15 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) transferred from Ludhiana to Parwanoo The Assessing Officer had stated that the value of old machine transferred, was very much less and he had worked out the written down value as on March 31, 2003, at Rs. 1,27,230 on the basis of his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment and manufacturing activity accepted. Refer to pages 152 to 153. 6. We have been receiving the orders from different parties at Parwanoo addresses of unit for which the evidence is there at pages 307 to 322. 7. The manufactured garments have been sent through reputed courier from Parwanoo and, thus, it proves that manufacturing activity had been carried out at Parwanoo. Evidence is at pages 207 to 214 and bills as raised by courier are at pages 215 to 217. 38. The learned authorised representative for the assessee fairly admitted that additional ground of appeal be admitted as it was borne out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In respect of the change in claim of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act, it was pointed out by the learned authorised representative for the assessee that as per the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to assist the assessee to claim the correct deduction and in case certain deduction was allowable to the assessee, the same cannot be ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cember 17, 2003 ; (iv) No objection certificate from Pollution Control Board on Sep tember 4, 2003 ; (v) Central Excise Registration No. AAAF04946PXM001 dated August 26, 2003 ; and (vi) A Provisional Registration No. 020909672 was issued on August 22, 2003 and permanent registration certification from Department of Industries bearing No. 02/09/04193/PMT was issued on September 27, 2005. 40. Further, the assessee installed machinery at the Parwanoo unit totalling No. 13 as under : (i) JUKI-DDL-8300N single needle lock stitch machine. (ii) Two needle four thread over edging machine. (iii) Industrial four thread sewing machine (overlook). (iv) Industrial sewing machine (flat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the issues and has given a finding that the necessary evidence of crossing barrier between Kalka and Parwanoo in respect of the 11 hand driven machines was filed before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) both, which in-turn established the transport of the said machinery. The existence of the machinery stands established from the declaration of the assessee in the balance-sheet filed for the assessment year 2002-03 onwards. In the entirety of the said facts and circumstances and in the absence of any evidence found to the contrary that the machinery originally held by the assessee had either been sold or stolen, once unit has been transferred from Ludhiana to Parwanoo, we find merit in the plea of the assessee that the said machinery has been transferred to the manufacturing unit. The Assessing Officer, on the one hand, had rejected the plea of the assessee that it had not transferred any machinery to Parwanoo unit, but on the other hand, has also held that the claim was not allowable as the value of the machinery transferred was more than 20 per cent. value of the total machinery installed by the assessee which in-turn was in contravention of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udhiana to Parwanoo which in-turn was utilised for manufacturing garments. Further, the manufacturing activity undertaken by the assessee is excisable and complete details in this regard were maintained by the assessee and no discrepancy has been found by the excise team in the sales declared by the assessee. The assessee had further furnished the sales tax assessment orders for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05. The manufacturing activity carried out by the assessee has been accepted. Accordingly, we find no merit in the observation of the Assessing Officer in this regard that the assessee was not carrying on any manufacturing activity. 45. Another aspect noted by the Assessing Officer was that the job work of printing and bleaching was carried out at Ludhiana. As the complete procedure was not being carried out in Himachal Pradesh, the assessee was not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, evidence was filed by the assessee that only 5 per cent. of the total manufactured goods were subjected to printing and bleaching process which admittedly was being carried out at Ludhiana. The learned Departmental representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confronted to the Assessing Officer, and had come to a finding that in addition to the 13 machines reported to the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, the assessee was also using 11 old hand driven machines which in-turn were transferred from Ludhiana to Parwanoo. Further, the requisite number of workers, i.e., about 30 was being maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had relied on statement of one Shri Kapil Sood who had stated that the unit of the assessee had less than 10 workers, could not be used against the assessee as the Assessing Officer has failed to allow cross-examination to the assessee and hence, the said plea of the Revenue is dismissed. 49. The Assessing Officer also compared the results shown by the assessee and the results shown by the sister concern and observed that the assessee had shown lesser expenditure and higher profit. However, as pointed out by the learned authorised representative for the assessee, the margin of profit on the export business was on higher side and further expenditure incurred in Parwanoo on a lower side than the expenditure claimed in Ludhiana by sister concern of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has found no discr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audit report furnished along with the return of income, the assessee had declared that it was eligible for deduction under section 80-IC(2)(b) of the Act. However, Schedule XIV of the Act prohibited the manufacture of garments as being eligible for deduction under section 80-IC(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the assessee was show caused as to why the deduction claimed under section 80-IC(2)(b) of the Act should not be withdrawn from the assessee. The plea of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was that by an inadvertent error, the auditor in the audit report had reported the deduction claimed under section 80-IC(2)(b) of the Act. However, the unit being established in Himachal Pradesh, the assessee was entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80-IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. We find merit in the claim of the assessee in this regard that after establishing the unit in Himachal Pradesh the assessee had claimed deduction under the requisite provision of the Act but merely a wrong sub-section was mentioned, does not disentitle the assessee from the claim of deduction. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has time and again prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; "6. In view of the above discussions, though the conclusions of the Assessing Officer that no manufacturing activities were carried out by the appellant at Parwanoo and that further the appellant was not legally entitled to deduction under section 80-IC could not be accepted, in the place of the discrepancies with regard to some vehicles remaining unexplained, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it has to be considered that the material claimed to have been trans ported by these vehicles was not available for manufacturing goods at Parwanoo. As per the details given in annexure 'A' to this order, the total of the raw material claimed to be transported through these vehi cles come to Rs. 45,33,495. The appellant has shown gross profit of 37 per cent. for the assessment year under consideration. The cost of raw material of Rs. 45,33,495 would correspond to sales of Rs. 67,66,410. Applying the gross profit rate of 37 per cent. to these sales the profit would come to Rs. 25,03,572. Therefore, it has to be held that the profit of Rs. 25,03,572 included in the profit of Rs. 1,22,38,136 by the appellant for the assessment year under considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana has erred law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,76,594 made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallow ance of deduction under section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relying on the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06 without going into the facts of the case. 2. That while allowing relief as mentioned in paragraph 1 above : (i) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not giving any credence to the statement of Sh.Kapil Sood wherein the person has stated that only 10-12 workers worked in the unit of M/s. Octave Exports and the unit usually remained closed and there was no work/manufacturing. (ii) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in facts by ignoring that only 13 sewing machines were put into oper ation at the unit of M/s. Octave Exports at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer. 2. It is therefore, requested that the order of the learned Commis sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be not interfered. 3. That the cross-objector craves leave to add or amend any round of cross-objections before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of." 60. The issue raised in the present appeal is identical to the issue raised in the assessment year 2005-06. We have already adjudicated the issue in the paragraphs hereinabove in relation to the claim of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. 61. The similar claim of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act was denied to the assessee by the Assessing Officer following the same line of reasoning as in the assessment year 2005-06. However, the Assessing Officer had made enquiries in respect of the vehicles crossing the barrier carrying raw material from Ludhiana to Parwanoo and no discrepancy was found in the said material being shifted from Ludhiana to Parwanoo. In the absence of any evidence found that the goods had not crossed the barrier, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
