TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue which could be the subject of investigation but scrutiny assessment could not be further scrutinized invoking the jurisdiction for rectification u/s 154 of the Act to arrive at such a finding. We accept the revenue's contention that principles of res judicata does not apply in a tax proceeding but that is not the point on which we are rejecting the appeal. We do not think any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. We concur with the Tribunal that Section 154 of the Act could not be invoked by the Assessing Officer in the facts of this case. - G.A. No. 2272 of 2016 and ITAT No. 294 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - Hon'ble Judges Aniruddha Bose and Protik Prakash Banerjee, JJ. For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial undertaking from claiming deduction under Section 80IB(1) of the Act. The said clause reads:- [iv] In a case where the industrial undertaking manufactures or produces articles or things, the undertaking employs ten or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power, or employs twenty or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on without the aid of power. 4. An order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 12th March, 2009 under Section 154 of the 1961 Act and it is asserted on behalf of the Revenue that this order was passed because of audit objection. This order, inter alia, records: Original assessment was made U/s. 143(3) on 29.12.2006 at a total income of Rs. 2,57,600/-. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DR and perused the materials available on record. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence the same does not require any adjudication. Ground No. 2 to 6 are identical in nature and hence are taken together for the purpose of adjudication herein. The assessee being a small scale unit as registered by the Govt. of Pondicherry Industries Department had set up a manufacturing unit in the backward region and accordingly is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. It is undisputed that the said unit started commencement of production in A.Y. 2001-02 being the initial assessment year and deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act was granted to the assessee by the ld. AO for A. Yrs. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 during the scrutiny asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year i.e. A.Y. 2001-02 and he need not stretch or travel beyond that year for the purpose of grant of deduction in subsequent years. Deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act is granted to the assessee for promoting the growth of manufacturing units in the backward region by the Govt. of India. It being a beneficial provision, the same has to be viewed liberally. Even otherwise, whether the same had to be viewed literally or liberally per se is a debatable issue which cannot be the subject matter of rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. In fact the issue of granting of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act had reached the corridors of various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court on various grounds and admittedly, the ground of deduction there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any material from which it could be ascertained that it was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal had rightly held that the question as to whether the assessee failed to satisfy the condition stipulated in Section 80IB sub-section (2) sub-clause (iv) was an issue which could be the subject of investigation but scrutiny assessment could not be further scrutinized invoking the jurisdiction for rectification under Section 154 of the Act to arrive at such a finding. We accept the revenue's contention that principles of res judicata does not apply in a tax proceeding but that is not the point on which we are rejecting the appeal. We do not think any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. We concur with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
