9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without jurisdiction. 2. The observation of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is without any basis. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have taken note of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the appellant's own case with regard to deduction u/s 10B and held that the appellant is eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). 4. For these and other grounds that may be permitted to be adduced at the time of hearing of the case, it is prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 may be set aside / cancelled." 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company engaged in the busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the contentions of the assessee and passed order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act on 23.03.2018. The relevant finding of the CIT reads as follows:- "5. The submissions made by the Assessee have been carefully considered. The issue is whether the Assessee-Company is engaged in the manufacture or production of any article of thing so as to make it eligible for claiming additional depreciation under Section 31(1)(iia). From a perusal of the records, it is noticed that this aspect has not been considered while framing the Assessment Order. The Assessee- Company is engaged in the business of export of finished frozen marine products. It has now listed out various processes involved in its operation in a general manner. Its reference to Section 10B wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaken Individually Quick Frozen (IQF) Technology where each shrimps is individually frozen at minus 28 degree centigrade and the process involved is preferred in international market over products frozen under conventional methods and the same involves the manufacture or process of article or thing, hence the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the I.T.Act. The learned AR has filed a brief written submission. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:- "The assessment order is set aside for de-novo examination and passing a speaking order in accordance with law. It may appear that the assessing officer has the liberty to examine the issue afresh. But in Paragraph 5 of the order the Commissioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer, we are of the view that the assessment order dated 16.02.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the CIT had correctly invoked his revisionary power u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. 6.1 However, the apprehension of the assessee is that though in paragraph 6 of the impugned order of the CIT had set aside the assessment for de novo examination, in paragraph 5 of the order of the CIT, various observations are made which make it obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of additional depreciation. The learned AR had submitted before us that the assessee has undertaken various processes which is technically superior to the conventional method of preservation of seafood for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
