9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry installed at the time of the setup have been transferred by the assessee and are not available during the year. Similarly, the issue of the lesser capacity of electricity meter also could not be raised. In absence of the basic enquiry, merely rejecting the explanation of the assessee without obtaining further evidences, AO could not have rejected the production of the assessee. With respect of the transportation of goods, only reason mentioned by the learned assessing officer is that assessee could not produce Toll tax receipt. AO himself has admitted that the assessee has provided VAT form 26A which shows that trucks crossed Himachal Pradesh Haryana border at Bahral Check post. In form number 26A, under VAT laws, there is a complete detail of the goods transported, lorry numbers, quantity of the goods, the time of removal from the factory of those goods et cetera. This also can be examined from the excise records. Therefore, it was not denied that goods were removed from the factory. Merely because the assessee could not produce the toll tax receipt, it cannot be said that the goods did not transfer from Bharal Check post to Delhi. When the goods removed from the factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of CIT (Appeals)-16, New Delhi, dated 12.12.2018 raising the solitary ground of appeal wherein the deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) denied by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 46(5), New Delhi, [ the Ld. AO ] of ₹ 44,86,232/- denied by him as per assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30th December, 2016, is confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). 2) The solitary ground of appeal is ground No. 2, which is as under:- That the learned ITO Ward 46(5) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case while denying the of rebate of ₹ 44,86,232/- claimed under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant on absurd grounds without going into the facts and circumstances of the case and also not considering the fact that the rebate was being allowed to the appellant from year to year after thorough scrutiny u/s 143(3) for all the years since Assessment Year 2008-09. 3) The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30th November 2014 for Assessment Year 2014-15 at NIL . In the return of income, assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C and detailed investigation of the documents as evident from the copies of the assessment orders and balance sheets enclosed (Page Nos 14 to 49). In the orders thus framed the respective AO have allowed deduction U/s 80IC after due examination under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. b. In Himachal Pradesh, it is essential to get clearance from Excise department for machinery purchased. The clearance form Excise department is on page nos 62 to 63. From the copy of bill/invoice, it is evident that various machinery is purchased from Modern Engineering Works, Modern Rubber and Plastic Works etc having different bill no/serial no of booklet and of different dates issued. The supplier has also charged VAT/CST on above bills. The invoices are genuine having complete address, phone no, their factory address and other. The mode of transportation, Lorry no has also given on the invoices. The assessee has also discharged his liability through banking channel. The evidence to this effect is also enclosed on page nos 64 to 83. From the said above it is evident that new plant and machinery was purchased by the assessee for production in Unit III and not by splitting up or reconstr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery between these two units are not at all comparable. 6) In view of above submission denial of deduction by the assessee and confirmation of the same by the learned CIT A is not correct. 7) The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities by extensively referring to each of the facts, which proves that the claim of the assessee is bogus. 8) We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only dispute in the present appeal is with respect to deduction under section 80 IC in respect of the unit number III situated in Ponta Sahib, which was set up on 30 March 2010. Assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 4486232/ for this Ay, which was denied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT Appeal. Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in pipes and manufacture of waste disposal bins and containers for onward sales to various government agencies and Municipal Boards on tender basis. During the year under consideration the business of the assesse was carried out from the manufacturing units at Unit-II, Village Puruwala, Paonta Sahib, and Unit-Ill, Village Puruwala, Paonta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrows - body made from Plastic and metal frame, Plastic Containers of various sizes made from plastic - covered under item No 39.25 as per Excise classification and Dust bins where the frame is fabricated with steel and the body is made from plastic. All the abovementioned goods were fabrication items. The assessee has submitted that the comparison of the power consumed with unit II is unjustified as unit number II is producing highcapacity large containers, which require use of heavy machinery, and therefore it requires more electrical consumption. Further, regarding the production, the learned assessing officer has stated that consumption of the electricity did not substantiate the amount of production that has been shown by the assessee. However, assessing officer has not produced any report or any other evidence that how the assessee was producing in the last year when the deduction under section 80 IC was given on what changed during this year. Merely consumption of the electricity without any comparative analysis of without any further evidence, it cannot be said that goods have not been manufactured by the assessee more precisely when in the last year it has been accepted. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 10 when the original unit was set up. These bills are not pertaining to this year i.e. assessment year 2014 15. In the original assessment year, the 80 IC benefit is already granted in 143 (3) of the act by the assessing officer himself. In those years, these machineries were purchased. Naturally, the bills would have been of the date of 30 March 2010 because on that date the unit III was set up. After that almost 4 years have passed. If assessing officer wants to prove that bills of machineries purchased by the assessee in March 2010 are bogus, he should have first disturbed the assessment year 2010 11. That year at present remains undisturbed. In view of this, whole exercise by the assessing officer is useless. Even otherwise, not mentioning something in the bills does not make purchases of goods through those bills bogus. It leads to making a larger allegation on flimsy grounds. In view of this, we do not find any merit order of the assessing officer disallowing the deduction under section 80 IC of The Income Tax Act of ₹ 4486232/ . We also do not agree with the order of the learned CIT A which did not deal with any of the submissions of the assessee in prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
