9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the aid of power. If that is so, the onus is on the assessee to show that they not only manufacture or produce articles or things in their industrial undertaking but also employed 10 or more workers in the manufacturing process carried on. This aspect of the matter has not been established by the assessee by producing sufficient proof to show that the Chowkidar is a person who has also employed in the manufacturing process. There should have been a clinching materials produced to show that the assessee is an industrial undertaking which does manufacturing or produces articles or things. The authorities below as well as the Tribunal on facts found that the assessee does not fulfil the conditions. We cannot examine the factual find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the appellant and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 4.The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assessee is eligible for deduction in terms of Section 80IB(2)(iv) of the Act. In terms of Section 80IB(1) of the Act, where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in subsections (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B), such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h statement. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to consider the entitlement of the assessee and held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit under Section 80IB of the Act on more than one ground namely, there is no manufacturing activity and the assessee did not employed 10 or more workers in the manufacturing process. The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) which were dismissed and challenging the order, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. 6.The Tribunal with a view to afford an opportunity to the assessee vide order dated 18.12.2008 held that the disputes requires thorough examination at the level of the Assessing Officer and therefore, set aside the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period and they are casual labourers and cannot be termed as workers connected with manufacturing process. Further the remand report stated that the ESI return extracts/payment slip are not fresh evidence, but have already been examined by the Assessing Officer after giving opportunity to the assessee. 8.Mr.J.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Chowkidar himself has given a statement before the Assessing Officer. However, what is important to note is that to be entitled to the benefit, the assessee should show that it is an industrial undertaking manufacturing or producing articles or things and the industrial undertaking should employ 10 or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
