9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.03.2016, whereas ITA No.201/Ran/2019 has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-2015 against the order passed by the Pr.CIT, Ranchi, dated 31.03.2019 u/s.263 of the Act. ITA No.294/Ran/2018 (AY : 2013-2014) 2. The sole ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal is as under :- 1. For that, under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance so made by the Ld. Assessing Officer for the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) amounting to Rs. 16,74,407/- without following the rule of natural justice which states that in case of inconsistency, the view taken in favour of the assessee shall be upheld. 3. Brief facts of the case are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 20.02.2019, ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in paras 14 to 20 has decided that the activity of dehusking of paddy into rice will not amount to "manufacture or production" and there is no justification to give a narrower meaning to these terms, which, by themselves independently or jointly as employed in the said provisions of Section 80IA of the Act are wide enough to cover the industrial activity undergone by the assessee. Ld. AR also submitted that during the scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 in the assessment order dated 27.12.2016 the claim of the assessee u/s.80IB of the Act was allowed and on recommendation of the AO i.e. ITO Ward-1 Ranchi, the ld. ACIT revised the assessment order u/s.26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der has been revised by the ld. CIT(A) by invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 11. Secondly, from the observations recorded by Their Lodships in the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Muthuramalingam Modern Rice Mill (supra) from paras 14 to 20, I observe that the Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that there is no reason to hold that the activity of dehusking of paddy into rice will not amount to "manufacture or production" and there is no justification to give a narrower meaning to these terms. From para 5 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, I observe that Their Lordships adjudicated the issue/question raised by the Revenue that the process of dehusking paddy for obtaining rice does not amount to " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments of the both the sides and carefully perused the material available on the record of the Tribunal. 15. Ld. AR submitted that from bare reading of the impugned order passed u/s.263 of the Act, it is clearly discernible that the ld. Pr.CIT has invoked revisonary power on the proposal of revision by the ITO, Ward-1, Ranchi and thereafter in para 3 jumped to a conclusion that assessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue without any findings, examinations of relevant assessment record or observations. Ld. AR strenuously pointed out that in para 4 the Pr. CIT reproduced the reply of the assessee and thereafter in para 5 observed that the order for A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, ld. DR vehemently relied on the impugned order passed by ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO did not consider the first appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) for A.Y.2013-2014 and did not make any enquiry or verification pertaining to the claim of the assessee u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act, therefore, ld. Pr.CIT was right in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act for revision of the assessment order which is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 17. On careful consideration, first of all, from careful reading of the impugned order passed by ld. Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, I observe that in para 2 ld. Pr. CIT noted that a proposal for revision sent to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, hence, it is not a case of no enquiry. In my humble understanding of provisions of Section 263 of the Act, the ld. Pr.CIT is empowered to revise the assessment order where such assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue after calling and examining the relevant assessment records and holding that either there is no enquiry or there is insufficient or inadequate enquiry by the AO on a particular issue but no such exercise has been undertaken by the ld. Pr. CIT while passing the impugned order u/s.263 of the Act either. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that ld. Pr. CIT has proceeded to revise the scrutiny assessment order and directing the AO to decide the issue afresh i.e. for making rowing enquiry whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
