TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies undertaken by the assessee would amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 10(B)(2)(i) of the Act on the basis of said conclusion, the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act was allowed. we observe that the Assessing Officer adopted a reasonable, correct and plausible view based on logical analysis of documentary evidence of the assessee and fortified by the Inspector’s spot and physical inspection report and the same cannot be held as unsustainable or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer rightly held that the assessee is undertaking manufacturing activities and thus it is entitled for deduction/exemption u/s 10B of the Act. In our humble understanding, this is not a case of two possible views but the present case is the case of one acceptable and sustainable view and in this situation, it cannot be held that the CIT assumed valid jurisdiction to issue notice and to pass revisional order u/s 263 of the Act. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the CIT has no valid reason to assume jurisdiction to invoke section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2531/Del/2014, I.T.A. No. 5702/Del/2014, I.T.A. No. 5703/Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covert them in a finished product ready to use. The assessee firm is a 100% export oriented unit and profit and gains derived by the assessee firm from aforesaid undertaking was claimed as eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. For the first assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15.12.08 wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act on three grounds viz. the assessee firm has been reconstituted by the reconstruction of business already in existence; ii) the undertaking of assessee has not been approved by the revenue authorities on account of not obtaining custom bonding licence; iii) the assessee has been purchasing the finished handicraft items of other allied items and as per the sale invoices furnished, the items exported are exactly the same as have been purchased, in substance and in nomenclature also. And no manufacturing activity has been undertaken by the assessee within the meaning of section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer also passed assessment order for assessment year 2007-08 on 30.12.09 wherein following the earlier order for assessment year 2006-07, the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d purpose with following directions:- We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to enable him to process the claim of the assessee afresh in the light of the evidence brought on record. It is clarified that the Assessing Officer will examine only the question whether the assessee satisfied the condition stated in section 10(B)(2)(i) of the Act. 6. As per submissions of the assessee, it was a limited set aside and scope of assessment in the set aside was limited to record his findings whether the assessee has satisfied the conditions stated in section 10B(2)(i)of the Act vis-avis additional evidences brought on record during first appellate proceedings. It was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that the Hon'ble High Court has neither upset nor adversely commented upon the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the assessee is undertaking manufacturing activity within the meaning of section 10B(2)(i) of the Act. In pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(3)/260A for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 on 22.3.2013 after detailed verification of the additional evidence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce into new and distinct article which can no longer be regarded as original commodity and then only is marketable and ready for export. b) She has erred in not applying the definition of manufacture applicable as per clause (r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 as provided under section 10 AA of IT Act to an entrepreneur referred to in clause (j) of that Act in which assessee firm is also covered. c) She has failed to appreciate that assessee firm was granted 100% EOU by Ministry of Commerce under the Foreign Trade Policy as per Scheme of Special Economic Zone by Development Commissioner till that time legislature has not implemented SEZ Act, 2005. d) She has ignored that assessee firm is not only manufacturing as per its design and orders through the artists employed/hired but also engaged in cutting, carving, polishing, buffing, assembling, labeling, repacking etc for which supporting documents were filed by the assessee firm which are manufacturing as per Clause 9.37 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 which was more or less adopted under section 2 (r) of SEZ Act, 2005. e) She has failed to appreciate that assessment order is not erroneous as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try, Udvoy, Biawan. New Delhi. ii. Copy of reply dated 19.01.2010 received from EOU Section, Ministry of Commerce and industry, Government of India. iii. Affidavits of suppliers confirming about supplying the unfinished, unassembled and incomplete goods to the Assessee. iv. Exhibits 01 and 02 as Raw Chess Board and Raw Chess Pieces respectively and also Exhibits 03 and 04 as Finished Chess Board and Finished Chess Pieces respectively. 6. It is submitted that out of the aforesaid four additional evidences, documents at si. (i) (ii) were not related to the issue which was set aside and only documents stated at si. (iii) (iv) are related to the issue which was set aside. Further, after the set aside, learned AO duly examined the aforesaid documents and none of the aforesaid additional evidences was found as non genuine by the learned AO. That in the set aside proceedings, assessee also filed various replies vide letters dated January 21, 2013 (PB 14), February 25, 2013(PB 15-17), dated Nil (PB 18- 19) and dated 12 14 March, 2013 (PB 20- 21). On the basis thereof, learned AO took note of fact that on receipt of specific orders from exporters, asssessee in its fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial to the interests of revenue. The learned Director of Income Tax has to satisfy the twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised should be erroneous (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Both the conditions must be satisfied. In case the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the Commissioner would not be competent to exercise jurisdiction under section 263. The order under section 263 could be considered as erroneous, if such order is based on wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law. The order could also be said to be erroneous, if it has been passed without proper application of mind and, in undue haste without making proper inquiry warranted in the facts of the case. It is further submitted that, even if the order is erroneous, that by itself would not be sufficient for invoking the power under section 263 of the Act. The other condition, which requires to be satisfied for assumption of jurisdiction under section 263, is that the order should also be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The order could be said to be prejud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere no expenses which were attributable to manufacturing in the P and L account for the previous year relating to assessment year 2005-06. On the other hand, the profit and loss account for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 shows expenses in the nature of wages and also manufacturing expenses. Further, a careful perusal of the various assets shown in the depreciation chart for the assessment year 2005-06 clearly shows that there was no plant or machinery, which could be utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of handicraft items. On the other hand, the statement of asset for the assessment year 2006-07 clearly shows an addition of machinery of ₹ 35,100 which comprised of various tools/machines used for the manufacture of handicraft items. In the business of manufacturing of Handicraft items, as the name suggest, the main value addition comes through hand-made operations, for which small tools are needed which are, not very expensive. Therefore, even if there is insignificant addition in value terms in the assets, the same were relevant for manufacturing operations and cannot be disregarded summarily. 8.2 The learned appellant counsel also furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant firm had not done any manufacturing activity during the year for the purpose of export of handicraft items. 9. It is submitted that against the aforesaid order of the learned CIT(A) revenue preferred an appeal and such finding of the learned CIT(A) was also upheld by the Hon ble Tribunal in its order dated For the sake of convenience, the finding of the Hon ble Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow: 10.2 Coming to the issue about assessee's activity not amounting to 'manufacture' or 'production' or article or things, learned counsel has referred to various purchases from different parties in which different handicraft items and components of games are ordered. Assessee has demonstrated that finished product is a commercially distinct commodity i.e. 5 indoor games , which are very popular in foreign countries. It is pleaded that individual components are ordered as raw/semifinished components, which are carved, polished, finished putting various emblems and designs thereon. Thereafter the requisite games are polished, packed in different packings and the finished product works as a distinct and separate commercial commodity i.e. complete set of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. It is submitted that learned CIT(A) and Hon ble Tribunal has concurrently held that assessee is undertaking manufacturing within the meaning of section 10B(2)(i) of the Act. It is submitted that aforesaid concurrent finding of the learned CIT(A) and Hon ble Tribunal has also not adversely been commented by the Hon ble High Court, and case has been set aside only on account of the finding of the Hon ble High Court that before admitting the additional evidences, no proper opportunity was provided to the learned AO and hence to provide opportunity, the case was set aside. Further, in AY 2008-09 wherein learned AO has disallowed the deduction on the same grounds as was taken in AY 2006-07 and in the appeal filed by the assessee, learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 25.11.2013 has allowed the claim of deduction. 11. At this stage itself, assessee seeks to place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements Where assessee after purchasing unfinished handicraft goods applied various processes like cutting, polishing, repairing, remaking, etc., and for that purpose, incurred substantial labour expenses, it could not be denied exemption under section 10AA on ground that it was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act. As already narrated in the preceding paragraph, the emphasis of the Revenue is that in the absence of any definition under the Act as to what 'manufacture' is, the decision of the Apex Court reported in Tara Agencies (supra) would squarely apply. It is contended that every change is not 'manufacture' and every change in an article as the result of treatment, per se, would not result in 'manufacture'. There is no dispute on this broad principle. However, it is not denied by the Revenue that apart from cleaning and grading, the assessee had taken further processing; that what is purchased as raw material and what is exported as a product for export are totally different items. The process that the assessee had undertaken clearly points out the irreversible nature of the final end product from a raw material purchased and given the above said fact, which the Revenue does not deny, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the assessee that there was, in fact, 'manufacture'. 16. We accept the contention of the assessee in this regard drawing support from the decision of the Apex Court reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture has not been defined in the Income Tax Act. In the absence of a definition, the word manufacture has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity. Thus the Apex Court pointed out that if the commodity can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognized as a new and distinct article, then the activity of manufacture can be said to take place. 19. The decision relied on by the Revenue reported in Tara Agencies (supra), however, stands on a different footing. There, the assessee was engaged in purchase of different qualities of tea and blending the same for the purpose of export. On the question as to whether the assessee would be entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B(1A) of the Income Tax act, the Supreme Court pointed out on facts that the assessee's activity amounted to processing only and the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 83 (SC) wherein their lordships have held as under: 9. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 13. It is submitted that same view has been taken in following judicial pronouncements: i. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC ) Delhi iii. CIT vs Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 HC (Punjab and Haryana) iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 HC (Delhi) vi. CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 229 CTR 27 HC (Delhi) vii. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue if due to an erroneous order of the Assessing Officer, the revenue has lost tax lawfully payable by a person. Learned counsel of the assessee parted the argument that a final submission that in the present case, the view taken by the Assessing Officer after due inquiry, as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court is quite a correct, plausible, reasonable and sustainable view and there could be no other view possible on the facts and circumstances of the case and even in a case where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken a view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. 13. Learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the action of the CIT in issuing notice u/s 263 of the Act and in passing the impugned orders revising the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that merely because the assessee has undertaken som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that in the first round of proceedings, original assessment u/s 2006-07 and 2007-08 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act disallowing the claim u/s 10B of the Act and subsequently, the assessee raised various grounds before the CIT and the ITAT wherein the assessee succeeded and its claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act was directed to be allowed. It is also pertinent to note that the CIT admitted additional evidence in the form of exhibits of finished and unfinished products u/s 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 and also referred to various grounds for granting relief. The consolidated order of the first appellate authority for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 was upheld by the Tribunal and against this order, the department filed appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court raising questions on the admission of additional evidence and grant of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court admitted the additional evidence but remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for limited purpose to enable him to process the claim of the assessee afresh in the light of evidence brought on record only to examine as to whether the assessee satisfied the conditions laid dow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spector to visit factory of the assessee and to make spot inquiries about the actual work undertaken by the assessee. For the sake of clarity in our findings, it would be appropriate to reproduce the report of the Inspector wherein he stated as under:- these workers were engaged in manufacturing work on sanding machine, buffing machine, cutting machine and bolt fixing machine. Some of the workers were engaged in polishing, colouring, bar coding, assembling and packaging work.... On inspection of work being done there, it seems that the work was involved in finishing job on unfinished items. 18. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we observe that the ld. Assessing Officer, in his reassessment order dated 20.2.13 passed in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court, allowed deduction us/ 10B of the Act to the assessee by holding that the activities undertaken by the assessee would amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 10B(2)(i) of the Act in the context of aforesaid proceedings undertaken by the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings carried out in pursuance to the order of Hon'ble High Court, we appreciate that the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture has to be considered as defined in section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The relevant part of this order is being respectfully reproduced as under:- The provisions of section 10AA of the Act was inserted on the statute book by the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 with effect from February 10, 2006. Even prior to the enactment of the said Special Economic Zones Act, special economic zones (including units therein) were all along treated like EQU/FTZ/EPZ for all purposes whatsoever and were dealt within the Exim policy accordingly. Section 2(k) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 defines the expression existing Special Economic Zone to mean every Special Economic Zone which is in existence on or before the commencement of the said Act. Section 2(l) defines the expression existing unit to mean every unit which has been set up on or before the commencement of the said Act in an existing Special Economic Zone. In other v/ords, admittedly all Special Economic Zones were also being governed by the Exim policy prior to the enactment of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 10AA lays down that the expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is much wider than what is the meaning of the term manufacture under the common parlance, and it includes processing, blending, packaging, etc. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of the hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries (supra) and Tata Tea Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 285 (Ker), we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea Similarly, in our view, the indus- trial units engaged in the very same activity, i.e., blending, packing and export of tea in the free-trade zone shall also be entitled to enjoy tax exemption under section 10A of the Act. 21. Furthermore, in the case of ITO vs Makers Mart (supra), ITAT Jodhpur Bench after analysing the relevant provisions of the Act categorically held that where the assessee after purchasing unfinished handicraft goods applied various processes like cutting, polishing, repairing, remaking etc. and for the purpose, incurred substantial labour expenses, then it could not be denied exemption u/s 10AA of the Act on the ground that it was not a manufacturing concern. The relevant observations and operative part of this order read a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case, it is also admitted fact that in the preceding asst. yrs. 2007-08 and 2008-09. the deduction claimed by the assessee under s. 10AA of the Act was allowed while passing the assessment orders under s. 143(3) of the Act. Copies of the said assessment orders are placed at page Nos. 232 to 249 of the assessee's paper book. In the instant case, nothing is brought on record to substantiate, that there is any change in the facts of the present year vis-avis the earlier years. It is relevant to point out that in the assessment order dt. 20th April, 2010 for the asst. yr. 2008-09 passed under s. 143(3) of the Act. copy of which is placed at page Nos. 232 to 236 of the assessee's paper book, the AO while allowing the deduction under s. 10AA of the Act observed as under : Meanwhile, vide order sheet entry dt. 19th March. 2010, Inspector of this Ward was directed to verify whether the unit is located in Special Economic Zone or not and whether the firm is manufacturing the articles of its own or not. The inspector of this Ward, vide his report dt. 29th March, 2010 has reported that the assessee's factory and production house is situated at G- 185 and 186, F-204 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and giving shapes and attaching small attachments which are needed as accessories and requirement of items. (5) These items were now given for finishing for removing the welding signs and balancing the same. (6) Now these items are polished as per requirement of buyer, i.e., nickel platting powder coating, sand stone blasting or colouring as per requirement. (7) Now final polishing is done and by checking the accuracy of item as per requirement and as per order and specification of size and finishing and glass accessories were fitted or final accessories were fitted as per specifications. (8) Special packaging is done as per item and individual item is packed in separate box and than each is packed in big boxes with use of different kind of packing material after labelling and tagging the items. (9) Labelling of boxes and putting it in container for export of the same. That manufacturing of items involved many steps and due to variety of items and style, each and every work of the item cann't be done in-house, hence some part of the work/job is given outside to specialist for adding in the items and which returns the same and next process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the AO to allow the claim of the assessee under s. 1OAA of the Act. Accordingly, we do not see any merit on this issue in the appeal of Department. 22. It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Divij Exports vs ITO, Jodhpur Bench has also examined similar question in the similar set of facts and circumstances wherein the assessee challenged the revisional order passed u/s 263 by the CIT wherein it written submissions held that where the assessee was purchasing semi/finished wooden articles which required other work of beautification and of artistic value, thereafter wooden articles took shape of antique look, then the assessee was rightly allowed exemption u/s 10BA of the Act. The relevant part of operative part of this order is being reproduced as under:- Thereafter, the learned CIT exercised the powers under s. 263 of the Act by observing that the assessee's business had been mentioned as manufacturing and trading of all kinds of hand made articles or things (handicraft goods) which were of artistic value and which required the use of wood as the main raw material. According to learned CIT. the report of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n exported thereafter the artistic work of grooming/digging/adding of some particular has been made and also polishing work has been done. The detailed list of purchase and sales and their vouchers are enclosed. According to cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of s. lOBA of the IT Act, 1961, which the assessee has to fulfil are as under: 'It manufactures or produces the eligible articles or things without the use of imported raw materials.' After reading the above clause it is clear that the undertaking should manufacture or produce the eligible articles or things. The expression production has wider meaning than the word 'manufacture'. The word 'production' includes the activities of manufacturing by applying human endeavor on some existing raw material to make it valuable. In the instant case, the assessee has done the manufacturing activities to manufacture the eligible articles or things i.e. all hand made articles or things which are of artistic for which wood used as main raw material but in some negligible cases i.e. not more than 15 per cent value of sale price the articles or things have been purchased in raw or rough thereafter the artistic act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led that only parts were purchased was merely an afterthought and make to believe story. The learned CIT also referred to the case law relied upon by the assessee at pp. 9 and 10 of the impugned order. The learned CIT held that the AO had erroneously allowed exemption of ₹ 5,04,428 under s. 10BA and thus assessment order was erroneous as also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, while exercising his power under s. 263 of the Act, the learned CIT set aside the order under s. 143(3) dt. 26th April, 2007 passed by the AO and directed him to reframe the assessment. The learned CIT also mentioned that the AO had not examined and made inquiry for investigation of any type for the various expenses i.e. power expenses salary and wages, electrical expenses and telephone expenses. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the AO thoroughly examined and investigated the case of the assessee before framing the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act and only after being satisfied allowed the deduction under s. 10BA of the Act. It was further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtmental Representative reiterated the observations made by the learned CIT and strongly supported the impugned order. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and export of goods but learned CIT was of the view that apart from manufacturing and exporting goods, the assessee was engaged in the trading activity. That view was taken on the basis of certain invoices wherein it was mentioned that the assessee purchased wooden articles. The explanation of the assessee before the learned CIT was that those wooden articles were subject to further processing before making them finished goods. In the instant case, the assessment was framed under s. 143(3) of the Act and books of account as maintained by the assessee were subject to the audit under s. 44AB of the Act. The assessee also filed audit report along with return of income. It is not a case that the AO had not examined the books of account and supporting material while framing the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee also furnished report under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we are of the view that the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by learned CIT. 23. In view of above dicta laid down by Hon ble Special Bench of the Tribunal, we have no hesitation to hold that for the purpose of claim u/s 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Act, we have to consider the genuineness of the word manufacture as defined in section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zone Act 2005. In the present case, the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court not only examined and verified additional evidence and all relevant submissions and documentary evidence of the assessee but also called a physical spot inspection report by the Inspector of the department wherein it was informed that the workers of the assessee firm were engaged in manufacturing work on sanding machine, buffing, cutting and bolt fixing machine. The Inspector also observed that some of the workers were engaged in polishing, colouring, assembling and packaging work. After inspection of said work being done there, the Inspector noted that the wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has undertaken manufacturing activities as required u/s 10B(2)(i) of the Act, then in pursuance to the said order, the Assessing Officer himself verified and examined the claim of the assessee and after calling and considering the spot inspection report of the Departmental Inspector, he held that the activities undertaken by the assessee in its workshop/factory was manufacturing activity and thus the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. In this situation, the CIT was not correct in invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act as the view taken by the Assessing Officer in the order passed in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court was quite correct, possible and plausible view which cannot be alleged as unsustainable or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence the same cannot be labelled as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 25. In this judgement of CIT vs NDTV, their lordships speaking for Jurisdictional High Court also considered and referred to its earlier judgments in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) and ITO vs D.G. Housing Projects L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 are bad in law and the action of the CIT was not based on valid assumption of jurisdiction and thus we quash the same. 28. Since facts and circumstances for assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 are quite similar, our conclusion for the grounds of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 will apply to assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08 mutatis mutandis. We order accordingly. Finally, impugned notices issued u/s 263 of the Act and orders passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act dated 19.3.14 for assessment year 2009-10, dated 16.9.2010 for assessment year 2006-07 and dated 19.9.2014 for assessment year 2007-08 are hereby quashed. All three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Revenue appeal in I.T.A. No. 924/D/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 29. This appeal has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 25.11.2013 in appeal no.207/2013-14 for assessment year 2008-09. 30. In this appeal, the department has challenged the first appellate order wherein he allowed claim of exemption u/s 10B of the Act to the assessee. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the material placed on record before us. The CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
