9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal upholding the grant of deduction to the assessee PTM Industries (one of the petitioners herein) under Section 80IB of the IT Act for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Since for the assessment years preceding and following the questioned assessment year, the issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee, this Court is of the firm opinion that the assessing officer was not at all justified in reopening the matter by exercising the powers under Section 148 of the IT Act. The impugned orders apart from being totally perverse and laconic, also suffer from total non-application of mind and also amount to colourable exercise of power and thus, cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of workers in each unit was more than 10 and units were undertaking manufacturing process with the aid of power. Accordingly, the benefit of deduction under Section 80IB was allowed to each of the petitioners for AY 2006-2007. However, thereafter the assessing officer seems to have taken a different view and issued notices to the petitioners under Section 148 of the IT Act proposing to disallow the deduction already granted to the petitioners for the AY 2006-2007. The petitioners herein filed their replies to the notices and demanded reasons for purported reopening of the proceedings in reference to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft vs. ITO & Ors. reported at 259 ITR 19 (SC). The assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the issue regarding admissibility of the deductions under Section 80IB is no longer res integra in view of the judgment dated 17.3.2015 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in ITA Nos.52/2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur vs. M/s PTM Industries, Balotra), 53/2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax- II, Jodhpur vs. M/s PTM Industries, Balotra) and 54/2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur vs. M/s PTM Industries, Balotra) whereby, identical controversy was decided against the revenue for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2008-2009 and 2007-2008 respectively. They thus urged that the writ petitions should be accepted in the terms prayed for. Per contra, Shri Sunil Bhandari learned counsel for the respondents vehem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, a writ petition can be entertained against the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court whilst deciding the issue relied upon the earlier Supreme Court's judgment rendered in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) and upheld this contention and repelled the preliminary objection raised against maintainability of the writ petitions. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that aforesaid preliminary objection is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Division Bench in ITA Nos.52/2013, 53/2013 and 54/2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur vs. M/s PTM Industries, Balotra) affirmed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the grant of deduction to the assessee PTM Industries ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
