2015 (1) TMI 971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he order dated 31.10.2012 rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowing the appeal of the respondent/assessee thereby setting aside the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 assessing the income of the respondent at Rs. 71,99,590/- charging interest under Sections 234-B and 234-C of Income Tax Act and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271-IC of the Income Tax Act. 2. The assessee is proprietor of entity carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s Concept Industries engaged in the manufacturing of electronic goods. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80-IC in the return filed for the relevant year. A notice under Sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the CIT (A), inter alia, noted the facts as under:-               "5.2 On perusal of the material on record, it is found that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electronic goods specifically various models LCD monitors. In order to carry on this business, he entered into a technical collaboration with M/s. Punch Video Inc (Taiwan). As per the terms of collaboration ,the appellant was allowed to manufacture and sell its products under the brand name "NOCVOX". For this purpose, he imported different components from various sellers in Singapore, Taiwan, Hongkong etc. and then assembled them in the factory located in Himachal Pradesh. In support of such activity the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p its conclusions, the CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had filed the return under Section 139(1) of Income Tax Act within the specified time alongwith audit report in the appropriate form under Section 44 AB of Income Tax Act. In the views of the CIT(A), the assessment had been made merely on doubts or surmises, which was not permissible as no adverse material contrary to the claim of the assessee had been brought on record by the A.O. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the assessment order was set aside. 8. In second appeal by the Revenue before the ITAT, the same very contentions were reiterated but without any success. The ITAT concurred with the findings of the CIT(A) that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction under Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X