9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was justified in setting aside the order dated 08.03.2010 as passed by the CIT (I), Jaipur under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act whereby the CIT has held that the assessment order dated 04.12.2017 as regards deduction under Section 10BA of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for having been made without proper verification?" 3. We have heard counsel for the parties. 4. Counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal while considering the matter, has rightly observed as under:- " 15. The Ld.CIT has not recorded a finding that the assessee has not employed 20 or more workers. The Ld.CIT in his order held that the A.O. has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 10BA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itting of brass and iron items again with a view to give artistic and antique look. (vi) Filling with a view to smoothen the surface. (vii) Sanding. (viii) Carving with a view to bring the artistic value and to show that these are antique items, (ix) And lastly polishing. (x) Thereafter, various wooden items are fitted according to the need and design of the exportable wooden article ie. wooden moulding is fitted, Inlay is done." 16. Hence the A.O. took a possible view that assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 10BA. The Ld. CIT has not recorded a finding that the article as exported by the assessee are not covered under the eligible articles or things as mentioned in Explaination to section 10BA. 17. Perusal of order of ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and the documents furnished do not provide doubt in a reasonable mind to examine further then the Ld. CIT will not have jurisdiction to take action u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. Crisil Limited v Addl. CIT 2010-T10L-372 ITATMum. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that there is a difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. In a case where the assessee has given reply to the querry raised as per satisfaction of A.O. the order is not errenous, CIT M/s. Vikas Polymers 2010-T10L-595 H.C.Del. 19. Considering the case laws, as cited by the Ld. A/R, it is clear that order is required to be errenous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order in the instant case is not errenous. Hence we fell that Ld. CIT was not just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
