2015 (11) TMI 1001 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80IC(4) - non placing on record any documents in support of his claim by assessee that the imported machines had not been used in India, especially since the machines were purchased by the assessee 7 months after their import - Held that - A s held by Tribunal, being final fact finding authorities, find no force in the submissions of the Ld. DR that documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer. The reading of the assessment order for assessment year 2006-07 clearly show that documents were filed before the Assessing Officer also. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 81IC(4) without supporting documents for imported machines not used in India.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 81IC(4) without providing supporting documents to prove that the imported machines were not used in India before purchase. The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of Printing and Packaging material, claimed statutory exemption under Section 80IC(4)(ii) and Explanation-1 of sub-section (3) of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the claim, but the order was reversed in favor of the assessee in an appeal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee.

The relevant provision of Section 80IC focuses on the conditions that need to be fulfilled for claiming a deduction, including that the machinery or plant should not have been previously used for any purpose before being transferred to a new business. Explanation-1 of sub-section (3) of Section 80IA further clarifies that machinery or plant used outside India by any person other than the assessee will not be considered previously used for any purpose if it was not used in India before installation by the assessee.

The Tribunal, after conducting enquiries and reviewing documents, found that the imported machines were not used in India before purchase by the assessee. The Tribunal's findings were considered valid and not erroneous, as they were supported by documentary evidence and the affidavit of the vendor. The judgment emphasizes that the authorities below, as final fact-finding authorities, had correctly ruled in favor of the assessee based on the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, stating that there was no misinterpretation or misapplication of the law. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the claim that the imported machines were not used in India before purchase. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.