TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts onus for claiming deductions by producing evidence despite being given sufficient opportunities. 2. Ld.CIT(A) has further erred in accepting fresh evidence under Rule 46A and not affording opportunity to Assessing Officer before deciding the appeal, without adopting the mandatory conditions as are laid down under Rule 46-A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 2. As regards second ground with regard to accepting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, Ld.DR was asked to show either from the order of CIT(A) or from material on record as to which fresh evidence has been accepted by the (A.Y. : 2006-07) first appellate authority without adopting mandatory conditions as laid down under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Explanation 2 below sub-section (2)(ii) of the section 80IB, which provided that in order to be eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IB, the total value of the machinery or plant, previously used for any purpose, transferred to any eligible new business should not exceed 20% of the total value of the machinery or plant used in the business. The Assessing Officer collected the (A.Y. : 2006-07) information regarding the machinery and plant provided by M/s Gillette India Ltd. and observed that value of the machinery which was old and earlier used by M/s Gillette India Ltd. exceeded 20% of the value of plant and machinery of the eligible business and hence applying Explanation 2 below sub-section (2)(ii) of section 80IB, the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t original cost and ignoring its written down value which comes to (A.Y. : 2006-07) ₹ 4,26,651/- at the time it was given to M.J. Industries. In case, the written down value of these machines is taken into account than the value of old machines to total investment would come to 14.69% which is well below the 20% bar fixed by Explanation 2 to Section 80IB(ii). 6. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, wrong and unjustified in ignoring the narration of the word transfer given in section 2(47) while deeming the machines owned by M/s Gillette India Ltd. and given by them to the assessee for use. 7. Further, arguments were also advanced to plead that plant and machinery agreement was signed between the assessee and the Gillette India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer. Ld.DR further submitted that CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim when assessee had failed to establish its case for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. It was thus pleaded for restoring the order of the Assessing Officer. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed each and every document before the Assessing Officer to establish its case for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, as claimed. Copy of the agreement and other relevant document were duly furnished before the Assessing Officer, who did not allow the claim of the assessee with respect to deduction u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that old machinery utilized by the assessee exceeded 20%, as prescribed and, but Ld.CIT(A), in appeal while considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
