9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him, so as to convey the said reasons, which would then by incorporation form the reasons informing his order or decision, besides constituting a self-contained order, while in the present case it does not state, even broadly, the basis for the confirmation of the disallowance, i.e., for the earlier years. Again, it would also enable the reader to see if the facts and circumstances of the instant case are or are not, identical or similar, as the case may be, for the said decision to apply for the current year. Further still, it was also incumbent on the ld. CIT(A) to state as to why the decision/s by the tribunal, confirming the deduction u/s.80-IB for the earlier years in the assessee's own case, binding upon him, was not followed, as j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of processing of marbles. For the A.Y. 2006-07, it filed its return of income on 30.11.2006 through the electronic mode, declaring a total income of ₹ 24,13,007/. The same was subsequently selected for scrutiny under the verification procedure under the Act, and assessment framed u/s. 143(3) by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) vide order dated 21.11.2008 at a total income of ₹ 37,74,570/-. The variation between the returned and assessed income is on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under the section 80-IB, at ₹ 10,34,146/-; interest of ₹ 3,12,509/-; and addition of undisclosed contract receipts at ₹ 14,907/-. The present appeal though agitates only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified to disallows the claim. 2. LEVY OF PENAL INTEREST The Appellant, on merits, denies its liability to penal interest.' 3. We have heard the party before us, and perused the material on record. 3.1 As afore-noted, the principal reason for the impugned disallowance was the non furnishing of the audit report, as required by the provision itself (s. 80-IB(13) r/w s. 80- IA(7)). The same was though furnished by the assessee in the appellate proceedings, with the ld. CIT(A) calling for a remand report from the A.O. in its' respect. The A.O., relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Unnikrishnan vs. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 485 (Ker), objected to the same in-as-much as sufficient opportunity had been granted to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould also enable the reader to see if the facts and circumstances of the instant case are or are not, identical or similar, as the case may be, for the said decision to apply for the current year. Further still, it was also incumbent on the ld. CIT(A) to state as to why the decision/s by the tribunal, confirming the deduction u/s.80-IB for the earlier years in the assessee's own case, binding upon him, was not followed, as judicial discipline would dictate. His order, accordingly, does not satisfy the mandate of section 250(6), and is accordingly to be set aside for passing a fresh, speaking order in accordance with the law. 3.3 We further observe that though the A.O. has raised objections to the admission of the audit report per his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the said audit report by the assessing authority. Rather, r. 46A precludes the placing of reliance by the first appellate authority on any additional evidence which has not been examined apriori by the assessing authority, who, as it appears, construed the remand report to only imply a statement of the objections, if any, to its admission. This is all the more so in the present case as the same has also not been examined by the ld. CIT(A), whose purview as an appellate authority is to enable determination of the income rightly chargeable to tax and, consequently, the assessee's correct tax liability. Reference in this context may also be usefully made to the decision in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
