9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore the petitioner had rightly claimed deduction under section 80-IC of the said Act which the assessing officer in the years in which the assessment had been completed under section 143(3) had allowed after examining the necessary evidence - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1310/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2014 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL AND SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JJ. For The Appellant by : Shri Y. Kakkar, DR For The Respondent by : Shri Shalabh Jasoria, CA ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds :- 1. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of ₹ 70,93,061/- u/s 80IC of the IT Act despite the fact that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of plastic products which is covered in negative list of Thirteenth Schedule . 2. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance by holding that the assessee has been granted exemption under the Excise Act and therefore no disallowance can be made under the provisions of the I.T. Act without any basis. 2. The Ld. AR pointed out that issue raised in the ground has been settled by the Hon ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or heading nos. 39.09 to 39.15. As per him the legal interpretation is that the goods manufactured by the assessee fell under the heading nos. 3923.90 and 8414.99 of the excise classification. He has also observed that in the exemption certificate that was issued to the assessee it was stated that the description of input used in the manufacture of specified goods are mentioned as HDPE, PP, pet granules, base plate resistible, switches, etc. The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter has observed that the schedule 13 does not talk about the raw material and the raw material used by the assessee for manufacture of specified goods is very much in the approved classification of the excise department. As per the classification of heading No. 3920 of the central excise classification the goods or articles manufactured by the assessee fall under the classification as articles for the conveyance or packing of goods of plastics, stoppers, lids, caps and other closures. The objection of the AO in allowing the claim of the assessee was that the assessee has used plastic granules. The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter has also referred appellate order in the case of sister concern i.e M/s. Om Shree Geeta Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to periodic checks and inspections. After going through the provisions laid down u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, schedule 13 serial No. 20 of the I.T. Act as well as the stated notifications dated 18.5.95 and 10.6.2003 issued by Central Excise Department reproduced in the first appellate order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the above findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A). Besides, the issue raised in the grounds, is fully covered by the judgment dated 18.2.2013 (supra) of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself the relevant para No. 8,9 and 10 thereof are being reproduced hereunder :- 8. The reasoning adopted in the two years for which the re-Opening is being sought after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was that since the petitioner had answered Not Applicable with regard to serial No. 14(ii)(e) of form 10CCB, the petitioner had failed to disclose full and true material facts necessary for his assessment. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the assessment order dated 29.3.2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06 wherein the assessing WP 1987/12, 2732/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the case, then, the answer given by the petitioner in serial No. 14 (ii) (e) of form 10 CCB filed along with the return is not wrong, false or inaccurate. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to have failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for its assessment. 10. Insofar as the other assessment years are concerned where the issue of limitation of four years does not arise, the position would not be any different. This would be so because on a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of section 80-IC(2) read with serial No. 20 of the 13th schedule of the said Act read with the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, it would be clear that the petitioner s product does not fall within the negative list and WP 1987/12, 2732/12, 2749/12 2733/2012 Page 8 of 9 therefore the petitioner had rightly claimed deduction under section 80-IC of the said Act which the assessing officer in the years in which the assessment had been completed under section 143(3) had allowed after examining the necessary evidence. Even in respect of the year in which there was no assessment order under section 143(3), that is, the assessment year 2007-08, we fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
