9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 8 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10AA eligibility - Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cut & polished diamonds and its unit is situated in SEZ - Held that - We are of the considered view that assessee in the course of running its undertaking in SEZ is allowed to send raw material outside the SEZ area for getting it in a finished form on job work basis through outside labourers and further this activity of getting goods manufactured through outside sources is duly covered under the manufacturing activities. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 10AA(9) of the Act as there was no material evidence put on record and a specific finding to work out the basis to estimate reasonable profits by vehemently applying net profit rate at 2% as against 18.94% declared by the assessee without appreciating the facts that business house having a similar type of activity cannot end up at a similar level of GP/NP as much depends on the business strategy, quality of goods sold, rates negotiated with the buyers and optimum utilization of the resources including the employees and machines. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same. Accordingly, ground no.1 is dismissed. Secondly, the alternate view taken by ld. Assessing Officer for proportionately denying deduction u/s 10AA of the Act for goods manufactured from outside parties cannot stand for in view of our above discussion and the judgments of Hon. Bombay & Calcutta High Courts and decision of the Co-ordinate Bench Delhi in the case of Rajiv Bhatnagar vs. DCIT (2012 (12) TMI 1104 - ITAT DELHI) and it is well decided that such activities of getting manufactured goods from outside sources on job work basis are also covered under manufacturing activities. We find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue also. Ground no.2 is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA(10) of the IT Act. 2. Eligibility of deduction under section 10AA for goods manufactured on a job work basis outside the SEZ area. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Invocation of Provisions of Section 10AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the IT Act The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing cut and polished diamonds in an SEZ, reported abnormally high gross profit (GP) and net profit (NP) rates compared to other entities in similar businesses. The AO suspected that the assessee did not fully book all business-related expenditures and invoked provisions of section 10AA read with section 80IA(10) to estimate reasonable profits eligible for deduction at ?16,86,590, significantly lower than the claimed deduction of ?1,59,72,013. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, noting that the AO's reliance on GP and NP ratios of other entities without providing complete data to the assessee was unjustified. The CIT(A) cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized that assessments should not be based on surmises, suspicions, and conjectures without providing the assessee an opportunity to contest the data used against them. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that there was no evidence of defects in the assessee's books or transactions. The Tribunal referenced the case of CIT vs. Schmetz India (P) Ltd., where it was held that extraordinary profits alone do not indicate an arrangement to produce more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal also cited A.T. Kearney India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, which held that invoking section 80IA(10) requires evidence of an arrangement to produce more than ordinary profits, which was not present in this case. Issue 2: Eligibility of Deduction Under Section 10AA for Goods Manufactured on Job Work Basis Outside SEZ The AO contended that the deduction under section 10AA should be restricted to goods manufactured within the SEZ, disallowing the deduction for goods manufactured by sister concerns through job work. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that there is no prohibition under the Act against claiming deductions for goods manufactured on a job work basis. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s view, noting practical aspects of SEZ operations, where units may need to outsource manufacturing due to logistical constraints. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including Rajiv Bhatnagar vs. DCIT, which held that outsourcing parts of the manufacturing process does not disqualify the assessee from claiming deductions. The Tribunal also cited CIT vs. Anglo French Drug Co.(Eastern) Ltd. and Addl. CIT vs. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd., which supported the view that goods manufactured through job work are considered as manufactured by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that in previous assessment years, the AO accepted similar GP and NP rates without disallowing deductions for job work, reinforcing the consistency in the assessee's claims. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of ?1,42,85,423 under section 10AA. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's actions lacked evidence and were based on unjustified assumptions, and that goods manufactured on a job work basis are eligible for deduction under section 10AA.
|
