9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed written submissions along with copies of judgments of various Courts in support of its case. He submitted that the company manufacturing Urea with manufacturing plant at Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh, has claimed expenditure of ₹ 15.66 crores for replacement of bi-metallic stripper under the head consumption of stores spares . He submitted that the assessing officer has asked the assessee to submit details of expenditure exceeding ₹ 1 lakh during the relevant period and the same was complied with. The assessee has filed copies of ledger accounts etc., as directed by the assessing officer. It is submitted that bi-metallic stripper is an integral part of the whole machinery u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He submitted that the replacement of bi-metallic stripper is not in the nature of current repairs as it has a specific and independent functioning to perform in the Unit of the assessee. He submitted that the issue was not properly considered and decided by the assessing officer and he has failed to examine the matter in a proper perspective. Hence, he relied on the order of the CIT. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties, gone through the orders of the CIT and the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the assessee. We find that the assessee is a company manufacturing Urea with manufacturing plant at Kakinada in Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s plant even after the replacement of bi-metallic stripper. 6. We find that the assessing officer, during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, has issued a notice on 26-11- 2007 to the assessee to file the details of expenditure claimed exceeding ₹ 1 lakh and also a copy of ledger account. The information asked for was complied with by the assessee. The assessing officer while framing the assessment order in this case in the scrutiny assessment proceedings, has recorded by way of Note not to the assessee as under:- During the course of assessment proceeding, it is observed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of ₹ 15.56 crores for replacement of bimetallic stripper under the head consumption of stores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure. We find that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT (supra) and various other decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned counsel for the assessee applies to the facts of the instant case of the assessee. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., (supra ) cited by the learned departmental representative is distinguishable on facts. It is now well settled that when the assessing officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it could not be treated as erroneous order, prejudicial to the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
