2012 (2) TMI 670 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Limitation of assessment order, Violation of principles of natural justice, Deduction u/s 80IB(11), Deduction u/s 80IB(11A), Jurisdiction of AO.

Limitation of Assessment Order: The assessee contended that the assessment order dated 30.12.2009 was barred by limitation as it was dispatched on 1.1.2010 and received on 2.1.2010. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was made within the statutory time limit of 31.12.2009. It was emphasized that the order must be issued beyond the control of the authority within the prescribed period, though actual service may be beyond that period. The plea of the assessee was rejected, and it was held that the order was within the limitation period.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee claimed that the AO failed to consider the detailed submission made on 22.12.2009 in response to the show cause notice. However, the assessee did not press this ground during the hearing, and thus, it was rejected.

Deduction u/s 80IB(11): The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80IB(11) on the grounds that the cold storage facility was not operational before 1.4.2004 and the entire plant became operational in the impugned assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed the deduction for previous assessment years (2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07) and that expansion of the existing plant does not disqualify the assessee from claiming the deduction. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and directed the AO to allow the deduction as per the directions given in the earlier Tribunal order.

Deduction u/s 80IB(11A): The AO denied the deduction u/s 80IB(11A) on the grounds that the assessee only traded in fruits and vegetables and did not process them. The Tribunal found that the AO did not examine all conditions u/s 80IB(11A) and the evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the AO to decide afresh in light of the Tribunal's observations and the evidence provided.

Jurisdiction of AO: The assessee contended that the assessment order for AY 2008-09 was passed by ITO 10(3)(4) while the jurisdiction was with ITO 10(3)(3). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the jurisdiction was properly assigned and rejected the ground.

Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO to follow the Tribunal's earlier orders and reassess certain issues.