9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y considered and appreciated, therefore, the facts of the present case are quite different. 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 invoking the provision of section 254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. - Miscellaneous Application No.169/AHD/2017 (arising out of ITA No.2808/AHD/2010), Miscellaneous Application No.170/AHD/2017 (arising out of ITA No.2602/AHD/2009) - - - Dated:- 13-11-2020 - Miscellaneous Application No.171/AHD/2017 (arising out of ITA No.2816/AHD/2010), Miscellaneous Application No.172/AHD/2017 (arising out of ITA No.2625/AHD/2009), Miscellaneous Application No s.174 175/AHD/2017 (arising out of ITA No s.21 22/AHD/2009) Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'ble Judicial Member And Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'ble Accountant Member For the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Provisional Registration of SSI issued on 21.01.2004 2. Central Excise-Registration Certificate dated 12.tt3.2004 3. Form S.T. IV dated 12.02.2004 issued by Safes Tax Department with Annexure stating the Plant 'Machineries 4. Power Sanction letter' issued by Electricity Dept dated 27.03,2004 5. Test Certificate of Three Phase Energy Meter dated 27.03.2004 ' 6. Electricity Bill dated 16.06.2004 slating consumption @1560 units 7. Intimation dated 31.03.2004 to Sales Tax Dept of first sale 8. Fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that manufacturing activities commenced from 28.03.2004. The Ld.AR submits that in the assessment order, the submission of assessee is recorded in para 4 of the order. In para 4, the AO recorded about the provisional registration of Small Scale Industry (SSI) on 21.01.2004, Central Excise Registration Certificate dated 12.03.2004, Form ST-IV dated 12.02.2004 issued by Sales Tax Department with Annexure stating the plant and machinery. Power sanction letter issued by Electricity Department dated 27.03.2004, Test Certificate of Three Face Electricity Meter, Electricity Bill dated 16.06.2004 showing consumption of 1560 units, dated 31.03.2004. The Sales Tax Department about first sale, first bill dated 31.03.2004. There was a typographical mistake in the Audit Report about the commencement of manufacturing activities in para 8 of Audit report as 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 considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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. Being aggrieved the revenue carried the matter before Tribunal in second appeal. 8. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties passed the order dated 17.02.2017. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored all the appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A) again. We have seen that our predecessor in para 9 of the impugned order after perusal of Audit Report noted that the same is unsigned and undated and that further held that there is no evidence to corroborate manufacturing activities commenced on 28.03.2004. Thus, all the material placed before our predecessor, were duly considered and on consideration has taken a plausible view. The Ld.AR of the assessee is now seeking the rectification of the order which is based on appreciation of evidence placed before the Tribunal. In our considered view, the Ld.AR of the assessee failed to bring any fact to our notice which may be consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
