TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignored by the ld CIT while directing the ld AO to frame the assessment afresh. We hold that when an addition could not be made as per law in section 153A proceedings, then the said order cannot be construed as erroneous warranting revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT. We hold that even on merits, there is no case made out by the ld CIT for making any addition on the issues proposed in the show cause notice of ld CIT. In these facts and circumstances, we find that the order of the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act for the Asst Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 deserve to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Allowance towards additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on plant and machinery - Held that:- The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing activity and thereby eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Once it is held so, the allowance towards additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on plant and machinery is automatic and this was specifically brought to the notice of the ld CIT by the assessee which has been conveniently ignored by the ld CIT while passing the revision order u/s 263 of the Act. In these facts and circumstances, we find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17B C, Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata700071 32,67,500/- 39,00,000 NIL NIL SPG/1 to SPG/13 and SPG/HD/1 5. The following assessments fall under the category of unabated assessments (i.e concluded assessments) as on the date of search on 13.12.2012 :- Asst Year Remarks 2008-09 Completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2010 2009-10 Completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.11.2011 2010-11 Completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011 2011-12 Time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act expired on 30.9.2012. Hence construed to be completed assessment. Hence as on the date of search, the original assessment proceedings for the Asst Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 stood unabated i.e completed. Pursuant to the search, the ld AO made the assessment u/s 153A of the Act on 27.3.2015 for the Asst Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 as under:- Assessment Years 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Original Assessed Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l depreciation on plant and machinery and rate of depreciation on lorries, which does not emanate from any of the seized documents found during the course of search. Hence it was pleaded that the order passed by the ld AO could not be termed as erroneous warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. With regard to the show cause notice issued for the Asst Year 2009-10 on the issue of understatement of sales , apart from the aforesaid two common issues, the ld CIT placed reliance on the seized documents marked as SHLA-4 from pages 2 to 105 and SPG-2 from pages 18 to 20 as the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee replied before the ld CIT that the seized document marked as SHLA -4 from pages 2 to 105 contians only sales bills relating to sales made by the assessee company to M/s Shalimar Hatcheries Limited. The assessee pleaded that such information is already part of regular books of accounts of the assessee and there is nothing incriminating therein. 7.1. The assessee also explained the alleged difference in sales by way of a detailed reconciliation statement filed before the ld CIT and the same did not emanate from the seized materials. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,95,547/- 2 Shalimar Pellet Feeds Limited 10,63,76,670/- (Illambazar Unit) 3 Shalimar Pellet Feeds Limited (Ranchi Unit) 2,46,01,580/- 43,90,73,797/- Total sale of feed feed ingredients 86,74,19,301/- 4 Shalimar Pellet Feeds Limited (Kolar, Karnataka) Breeding Farm Sale of hatching eggs 1,03,21,815/- Total sales to Shalimar hatcheries Ltd. 87,77,41,116/- Accordingly it was explained that there is absolutely no difference in sales figure as alleged by the ld CIT. The assessee replied before the ld CIT that the seized document marked as SPG-2 from pages 18 to 29 contains the trial balance of the assessee . 7.2. The assessee replied before the ld CIT that the seized document m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. These explanations have been completely ignored by the ld CIT while directing the ld AO to frame the assessment afresh. We hold that when an addition could not be made as per law in section 153A proceedings, then the said order cannot be construed as erroneous warranting revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT. We hold that even on merits, there is no case made out by the ld CIT for making any addition on the issues proposed in the show cause notice of ld CIT. In these facts and circumstances, we find that the order of the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act for the Asst Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the preliminary ground raised by the assessee on the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for the Asst Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 are allowed. ITA No. 952/Kol/2017 Asst Year 2013-14 Assessee Appeal 10. The first preliminary issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT had validly invoked his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a private limited company belonging to Shalimar Group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 128 of Paper Book). It was specifically brought to the notice of the ld CIT that the tribunal vide its order dated 30.11.2016 had duly held that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and thereby eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and copy of the order was also filed before the ld CIT. Once it is held that the assessee is engaged in manufacture, the eligibility to claim additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the plant and machinery used in manufacturing process is automatic. Accordingly it was pleaded that the order of the ld AO cannot be termed as erroneous warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. 10.3. The ld CIT however ignored all the explanations and submissions made before him and observed that the ld AO having held in the assessment proceedings that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activity ought to have correspondingly withdrawn the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act . Hence nonwithdrawal of the same constitutes an error in the order of the ld AO which also caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly he directed the ld AO to pass afresh assessment order in this regard. Aggrieved, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
