9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shiShodhan - Adv. For the Revenue : Smt. Anupama Singla - Sr.DR ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. These sixMiscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee for seeking rectification in order dated 18.06.2018 passed in the above referred appeals. All the Miscellaneous Applications(MA's) were filed on 28.12.2018. 2. In all the MA's theapplicant/assessee has raised common grievances, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the MA's were heard together and are decided by common order. For appreciation of the fact, MA No.174/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2005-06 was treated as lead case. 3. The assessee has made following averments in his MA No.174/AHD/2017; "1. The Applicant above named files the present application against order dated 17/02/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rety of the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the Revenue appeals back to the file of the Id. CIT (A) to decide the same afresh after verifying the relevant facts, survey material and statements, if any" 3. Hon'ble Member set aside departmental appeal on factually incorrect premises rebutted point wise as below: (i) Audit Report/Form No." WCCB issued by CA is unsigned & undated Detection is pot denied on this basis since signed Audit Report/ Form No. 10CCB was submitted before AO who accepted the same. (Annexure 1) (ii) 'No other evidence to-' corroborate that manufacturing activity of the assessee concern commenced from 28.03.2004 Assessment order notes submission of following evidence (Para 4) 1. Prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actually incorrect assumptions. It is therefore submitted that there; are- errors apparent on record in setting aside the issue for verification by Id. CIT (A) who allowed deduction u/s 80IB to the applicant by taking into consideration details submitted before AO/ CIT (A) which were filed in the paper book before Hon'ble ITAT. The Applicant respectfully submits that in larger interest of justice the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to recall the impugned order&refix the hearing of the appeal so as to pass appropriate orders." 4. We have heard the submission of the Learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and the Learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the consolidated order dated 17.05.2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.03.2005 confirmed that 28.03.2004 by Auditor was rectified by letter dated 28.12.2007 and this fact was accepted by the Ld.AO. 5. The Ld.AR for assessee submits that the Tribunal proceeded on factually incorrect presumption. The Ld.AR for the assessee prayed that the order was passed on wrong assumption of facts and without consideration of evidence on record. The Ld.AR for assessee submits that Audit Report duly signed by the Auditor is placed or record. In the form of paper book filed on 06.07.2011. To buttress her submission, the Ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Nisha Synthetics Ltd. Vs CIT 291CTR 328 (SC), CCE VsQuality Fun Food & Restaurant 259 ELT 641 (SC). The Ld.AR finally prayed that consolidated or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for dismissal of all miscellaneous application. 7. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the contents of miscellaneous application and the order passed by our predecessor on 17.02.2017. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the Ld.ARof the assessee. We have noted that our predecessor while adjudicating the appeal filed by the Revenue, passed a consolidated order in all six appeals filed by revenue. The sole issue for consideration before the Tribunal was related with the eligibility of deduction under section 80IB. The assessing officer disallowed the deduction under section 80IB. However, on appeal the Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee and allowed the deduction under section 80IB10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case are quite different. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE Vs Quality Fun Food and Restaurant (supra) held that Tribunal without adverting to the basic facts and making independent analysis of the agreements between the parties, relied on the decision and allowed the appeal of the assessee. It was held that Tribunal failed to advert even to basic facts and disposed of the appeal in in summary interfering with the order passed by authority. With utmost regards to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court we have seen that in the cases in hand our predecessor passed the order considering the facts of the cases and the evidenced furnished by the assessee. Thus, we do not find any merit to interfere in order dated 17.02.2017 by invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
