9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of processing Gherkins, onions and other vegetables. Assessee filed its return of income for the AY. 2008-09 on 30-09-2008 declaring its income as 'NIL' under the normal provisions. The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s.147 on the issue of deduction u/s.10B. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 30-12-2011 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act observed that though assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s.10B for ten AYs i.e., from AY. 2000-2001 to 2009-10, it has opted out of deduction u/s. 10B from AY. 2008-09 to claim benefit of another scheme 'Vishesh Krishi Gram Udyog Yojana (VKGUY). The assessee is eligible to take the benefit under the special scheme only if the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnexures were not examined". The CIT vide impugned order directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment keeping in view the points raised in the show cause notice. The CIT further observed that the AR of the assessee has produced un-authenticated statement of accounts, without any supporting documents, bills and vouchers etc., Aggrieved against this order of the CIT, the assessee has come in appeal before us. 4. Shri V. Jagadisan, FCA appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the very first ground on which show cause notice u/s.263 has been issued, that is, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.10B is factually incorrect. The assessee has not claimed deduction u/s.10B for the AY. 2008-09. This fact has been recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR further submitted that the assessee had filed certain details before CIT vide letter dated 20-12-2012 which is at page No. 40 to 42 of the paper book relating to sundry creditors and debtors, details of sale of import licenses, exchange fluctuation etc. The said information was not shared by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT is justified and well reasoned. In order to support his contentions, the ld. DR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of TTK LIG Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported as 51 DTR (Mad) 228 , judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., reported as 341 ITR 293 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for review as mentioned in the show cause notice are that the genuineness of the expenditure claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c were not verified by the Assessing Officer and the Balance Sheet items and details of annexure were not examined at the time of assessment. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is not clear as to how the CIT has come to the conclusion that the genuineness of the expenditure claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c were not verified and what are the items in the balance sheet which were not examined at the time of assessment. The CIT has also not mentioned the expenditure claimed in Profit & Loss A/c which needs verification. The CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to conduct roving enquiry without any specific dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
