9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for the sake of convenience. 2. In ITA No. 234(Asr)/2010, the revenue raised following grounds of appeal : 1. That the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in canceling the assessment order holding that the A.O. has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. 1a. While doing so the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all facts of the case. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 81B at branch office at Rajkot amounting to ₹ 21,48,370/-, where no manufacturing activity were carried out and no books of accounts of branch office were produced. 2. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. restored. 3. The appellant requests for l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was found to have been used previously for some other purposes. However, on appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar, held vide order dated 08.07.2004 that deduction under section 80IB is admissible to the assessee. Consequently, the income of the assessee was recomputed at Nil after allowing deduction of ₹ 21,84,220/- u/s 80IB vide order dated 11.10.2004. A perusal of the return filed by the assessee revealed that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IB in respect of exchange fluctuation of ₹ 12,46,048/-, export incentives of ₹ 34,96,296/- credited to the Trading P L account. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB in respect of profit of Branch Office at Rajkot amounting to ₹ 47,74,358/- also. Further, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 147 of the Act. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Sh. J.S. Bhasin, vehemently relied on the order of the CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made before him. 8. We have heard both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, examined the facts of the case, evidence and material placed on record and also gone through the orders of the authorities below. A careful perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 25.02.2010, clearly reveals that the Ld. CIT(A), has considered and adjudicated the issue, in question, in greater detail, after appreciation of the evidences and material on record, as also the legal and factual position of the case. Needless to say that the impugned appellate order is well r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come, the conditions of the first proviso to section 147 are not satisfied. Hence, while the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) give jurisdiction in the main provision of section 147 and also u/s 154, since there is no failure on the part of the appellant in making a full and true disclosure in respect of these receipts, the jurisdiction is not obtained. As regards the deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Rajkot Office of the appellant, it is seen that this was the first year of claim of deduction u/s 80IB by the assessee. The AO examined this claim and mentioned specifically in the assessment order that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80IB. The relevant particulars of the branch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues in my appellate order in the appellant s case for assessment year 2003-04 (supra) and relying on the same, I hold that since the AO has not shown that there was failure on the part of the appellant to make full and true disclosure in respect of export incentives and interest on FDR, the conditions of the first proviso to section 147 are not satisfied in respect of these reasons. In respect of the allegation regarding no manufacturing activity at the Rajkot Branch Office, I hold that the reasons recorded are only a change of opinion on the same set of facts. Hence, I hold that the notice u/s 147 issued by the AO in this case is bad in law. Consequently, the impugned assessment order is also held to be passed without jurisdiction and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
