9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 460 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10B - Held that - We find from the records that even after being required to file the details in respect of bank realization of the export proceeds, the assessee furnished a bank realization certificate for an amount of ₹ 7,21,88,815/- as against total export turnover of ₹ 10,82,68,158/-. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the revenue allowed deduction of ₹ 1,03,25,457/- in place of ₹ 1,52,42,322/- as claimed by the assessee. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee in absence of documentary evidence. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
Issues Involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order reducing deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act for AY 2010-11.
Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-Appearance of Assessee: The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) for AY 2010-11. Despite multiple calls and no application for adjournment, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR was present, and the Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material on record. 2. Background of the Case: The assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing food products, filed its return for the relevant year declaring income. The AO completed the assessment determining the income. The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A) who, after considering the case, dismissed the appeal. 3. Grounds of Appeal: The sole ground raised by the assessee in the appeal was challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in reducing the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act. 4. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal heard the Ld. DR and reviewed the material on record along with the orders passed by the revenue authorities. It was noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had addressed the ground raised by the assessee in detail. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence regarding bank realization of export proceeds. Consequently, the revenue allowed a deduction different from what was claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found no new facts or contrary judgments presented to challenge the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the findings were well-reasoned and judicious, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 5. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with no order as to cost. The order was pronounced in the open court on a specified date.
|
