9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of Rs.43,12,008 claimed by the appellant u/s. 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of its Unit in Surat Special Economic Zone. He ought to have appreciated, inter alia,: (a) that the appellant's claim was in respect of profits and gains derived from (i) export of gold medallions manufactured by its aforesaid SEZ Unit (from gold bullion directly imported by it or imported gold bullion purchased by it from MMTC) and (ii) from export of cut and polished diamonds imported by it; (b) that the learned Assessing Officer's conclusion that the appellant had not manufactured gold medallions had been arrived at after ignoring positive evidence and on the basis of suspicions and surmises arising in his mind from the circumstance that the Profit and Loss Account of the appellant's Unit had not been debited with any employee cost or labour charges and that the time lag between receipt of imported gold and export of medallions was only a day or two and, therefore, ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edallions and with reference to which, the appellant had even submitted before him [i.e. before the learned CIT(A)] a statement of alternative working of the quantum of deduction: (1) after taking into account proportionate apportionment of expenses of the appellant's overall business to its Surat SEZ Unit (in the proportion of turnover of the Surat Unit visa-vis total turnover) and according to which working, the quantum of deduction u/s. 10AA was worked out to Rs.1,72,81,250 (as against the appellant's revised claim of Rs.1,89,05,825 made in the course of the assessment proceedings after taking into account retrospective effect of the Proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 10AA inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 and (2) on the basis of assumption that export corresponding to imported gold purchased by the appellant from MMTC may not qualify for deduction since 'trading' included in 'services' in Section 10AA may not take in such re-export of goods which the assessee had itself not imported and as per which working, the quantum of the deduction had been arrived at at Rs. 1,53,71,366 (even as that assumption was not at all warranted in view of the Instru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,008 as per its return to Rs. 1,89,05,825, on the ground that it had been made by means of a letter addressed during the assessment proceedings and not by filing a revised return as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323). The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated, inter alia,: (a) that the appellant's return for the present assessment year had been duly filed on 29-09-2009; (b) that it was because the Finance Act, 2010 inserted a Proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 10AA which had a major retrospective impact on the manner in which the quantum of the deduction u/s. 10AA had to be computed (retrospectively from 1.4.2006 with effect from which Section 10AA had itself been inserted) that the appellant had to revise the quantum of the deduction claimed by it in its return; that since this amendment itself had been made long after the appellant's return had been filed, and further, since only one claim in its return was required to be changed, the appellant had revised it by addressing a letter to the learned Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings; (c) that, in any case, filing of revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive the same even if it had not been claimed by the assessee; that therefore, if, because a retrospective amendment to the law had come to be made after the appellant's return had been filed and especially because it impacted only one item of deduction in its return, the appellant sought revision of that item by addressing a letter instead of filing a revised return, it could not be rejected out of hand just because the claim was not made by filing a revised return. (g) that since, as explained at Ground No. 1 hereinabove, it was not open to him to uphold the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 10AA, it was not open to reject the appellant's ground on revision of the amount of the claim, on the ground that he had already upheld the disallowance of the claim itself. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No. 3 of the appetent's appeal challenging levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the same was only consequential in nature. He ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that the appellant had challenged the very le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
