TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have reduced the value of the assets from the total value of the assets eligible for deduction on the ground that such assets were being claimed against the deduction u/s.35AD. As noticed that the primary evidence being the completion certificate and the commissioning report dated 28.1.2013 certified by the Vice President (Operation Corporate Planning) and Executive Authorisation dated 5.7.2012 confirming the installation and completion report was not before the AO. Hence, the issue in the appeal is restored to the file of the AO for verification of the said two certificates. If the certificates are found to be correct, then the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s.35AD. Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cross objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn. Ld AR has also endorsed to this effect in the appeal. 4. In respect of revenue s appeal, ld CIT DR submitted that the only issue was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in allowing the claim of 35AD made by the assessee by admitting fresh evidences in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules. Ld CIT DR has filed written submission as follows: As regards claim u/s.35AD, fresh evidences were admitted by the Id. CIT(A) without calling for a remand report from the A.O. or confronting the A.O. with such evidences. a) These evidences were taken on record by the Id. CIT(A) without recording any reasons for the same. It is a settled law that a litigant has to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter should be restored to the file of A.O. so as to examine these fresh evidences. 5. Ld CIT DR drew our attention to para 4.2 of the order of the ld CIT(A) to submit that he has admitted the evidences in the form of commissioning report dated 28.1.2013 of the new plant Zypmite, which was certified by the Vice President (Operation Corporate Planning). He has also admitted fresh evidences in the form of installation/completion report showing the Executive Authorisation No.E.A.No.42/12-13 dt.5.7.2012. It was the submission that these evidences were not before the Assessing Officer nor were the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purpose of deprecation under the I.T.Act. It was the submission that thus, the information was before the AO. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.35AD on the ground that in the tax audit report filed, nothing is stated in respect of the said claim. It is also an admitted fact that for the relevant assessment year in the tax audit report, there was no requirement for stating regarding deduction u/s.35AD and the requirement of specifying the deduction u/s.35AD came into existence w.e.f 25.7.2014, much after the relevant assessment year. It is also noticed that in the audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
