9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appeal Nos.304 and 310 of 2014 are also produced and being heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.2429 of 2013 which is listed on board. 2. These three appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act(the Act) challenge the common impugned order dated 19th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order relates to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 3. The Revenue urges the following identical question of law in all the three appeals as under: "Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) to allow the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" Brief Facts 4. The respondent-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). All the three appeals relating to A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 were heard together and disposed of by common order dated 12th September, 2011. On examination of facts, the CIT(A) found that the finding of the Assessing Officer that plant and machinery was not in working condition was without visiting the site, inspite of the fact the respondent had during the assessment proceedings requested the Assessing Officer to visit and verify that the machine was in a working condition. It was further found that all material which is required for the purpose of production/materials to meet its export obligations is under the control of Customs and Central Excise Department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -10. It cannot reflect the state of affairs with regard to the respondent's unit at Surat during the three earlier assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. There was no contemporaneous evidence of the facts as existing for any of the three assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 to conclude that no manufacture and export had taken place. The impugned order further finds that the Assessing Officer does not record in the assessment orders that the survey party has conveyed to him that there was no export or import of items manufactured by the assessee from its premises in SEZ at Surat. It further observed the fact that the survey team noticed the irregularities at the time of survey but did not even remotel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
