9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of direct expenses i.e., labour charges and electricity charges. AO has disallowed the exemption on the ground that since the assessee failed to establish genuineness of electricity and labour charges the particulars furnished to substantiate its contention that gold medallions were manufactured from gold bars during the relevant period, cannot be accepted. As during assessment proceedings the assessee furnished the whereabouts of the firm from whom the assessee had hired generator set to fulfill the requirement of electricity in manufacturing process and the concerned person was examined by the AO. Similarly, AO has examined the person who made available the manpower to the assessee. So, in our considered opinion the assessee has discharged the onus on it to prove that during the relevant previous year, it carried out the business activities from SEZ unit, Sachin to avail the claim of deduction u/s 10AA AO has not accepted the evidence adduced by the assessee to establish that since there was no electricity connection generator was hired and manpower was also arranged to carry out the manufacturing activities. Therefore, no legal or factual infirmity in the order passed by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to the assessment year under consideration, the onus lies on the assessee. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance made by the A.O, by placing the reliance on the case laws which are not relevant to the instant case, as the facts of the instant case are entirely different from the cases relied upon. 5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in arriving at the decision that the A.O made addition just on the basis of presumption and suspicion; as in the assessment order, the A.O has firmly established the fact that no manufacturing activity was being carried out by the assessee at the SEZ premises." 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the assessment order, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the A.O has established that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing activities in the SEZ premises at Surat in the F.Y. 2010-11. There was no power connection to undertake manufacturing activities. Moreover, the law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) is not applicable to this cases as the facts of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncern case where the ITAT has allowed relief in similar and identical issues. In this context, the appellant relies upon decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT v/s Gia Exports, ITA No. 8080/M/2011, A.Ys 2006-07 to 2008-09, Bench 'G', Mumbai, order dated 19/06/2013 wherein under similar facts, it is held in para 14 & 15 of the Order as under (relevant part extracted)- 14. "It is noticed that to verify the claim of the assessee and explanation, the assessee was asked to submit the complete details of imports and exports made through its unit and approval from Custom and Central Excise Department. Documents relating to shipment import and export clearance invoices of import and export and foreign remittances in the bank accounts. The CIT(A) found that all these documents were submitted before the A.O during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) has further observed that he has examined all these documents and no discrepancy was noticed in these papers. Even the A.O has not mentioned any discrepancy in the Import and Export Clearance papers submitted during the course of assessment. It is an undisputed fact that in the SEZ unit no Import or Export can be made without the appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd & Jewellers Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vide ITA no. 509/JP/2011; in the case of M/s. Amar Exports v. Addl. CIT, Range-9, Surat vide Ahmedabad ITAT in ITA no. 436/Ahd.20 and again by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of M/s. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd. vs. ADCIT-5(1), Mumbai in ITA nos. 6947 & 6948/6718 & 6783/6949 & 6950/6758 & 6787/Mum/2011. 10. In view of the above observations, the appellant is entitled to claim exemption u/s 10AA. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the exemption of ₹ 60,71,726/-as claimed in the return of income." 7. We notice that in this case the assessee has placed on record the copy of letter dated 12.3.2014 from the then officer on special duty, addressed to the ITO14(2)(4) Mumbai, vide which certain information u/s 136 of the Act were supplied. From the contents of the said letter, it can be inferred that the unit was in operation on 28.3.2011 as contended by the assessee. The AO has also mentioned in assessment order that on perusal of details it revealed that the assessee had carried out its business activities from its SEZ unit, Sachin, Surat from 27.3.2011 to 29.3.2011. As per the assessee the process of manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
