9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment proceedings u/s 143(3) did not call for any detail nor raised any query in regard to claim u/s 35(2AB). The ld. AR submitted that this information was erroneously given to the ld. CIT inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did make enquiry as was evident from his order sheet entry dated 03.02.2014 by which certain enquiry was conducted qua deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Without going into the authenticity of the claim of deduction, we find that the ld. CIT set aside the assessment order primarily on the assessee s submission that the Assessing Officer did not call for any detail nor raised any query. Since this position does not prima facie appear to be correct, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of CIT f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... data submitted by the company during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are certain omissions in the body of the assessment order, which has resulted into wrong determination of total assessable income. He noted that the assessee company debited an amount of ₹ 10,56,75,239/- on account of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act but in support of its claim, the assessee did not produce mandatory form 3CM and Form 3CL. In the absence of these mandatory forms, the claim of the assessee could not be verified, however, the same was allowed in assessment order for A.Y. 2012-13. 4. Although, the dates are given fixing the hearing, however, the assessee sought adjournment and subsequently, filed written submission dated 29.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in this case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the above said condition was satisfied. Further no working is available on record to suggest as to how the deduction of ₹ 6.58 Crore have been claimed as even if the Audit report is considered ₹ 3,98,40,264/- was required to be added back before claiming u/s 35(2AB) deduction of ₹ 9,45,49,060/- or net deduction of ₹ 5,47,08,796/- should have been claimed. Since, all the above conditions needs to be fulfilled before availing weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) which has not been looked into by the Assessing Officer before allowing the said deduction, he held that the assessment order dated 05.12.2014 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The whole claim is reflected in Form 3CD of Tax Audit. It is notable that the Flon'ble Pr. CIT did not raise any query on sale of assets by the assessee company, therefore, it is presumption. However, sale of assets as quoted by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT are not a part of the R D assets as defined under Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Act 1962. Grounds of Appeal No.2 Claim of R D Expenditure u/s 35fl)(iv) for ₹ 1,11,26,179/- The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35(l)(iv) as reflected in Form 3CD at 100% pertaining to R D asset (Building) which amount is not part of claim u/s 35(2AB). The claim of the assessee is genuine. In view of the above, the order passed by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT is arbitrary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. CIT was fully justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 9. We have considered the rival arguments made by the both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Pr. CIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, completed the assessment, determining the total income at ₹ 13,75,88,960/- against the returned income of ₹ 12,04,31,650/-. Although, the case was selected for scrutiny for examining the allowability of claim of deduction u/s 35, 35(2A) and 35(2AB), however, there is no discussion in the body of the assessment order on this issue. On being a pointed query ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d remit the matter to the file of CIT for deciding it afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of Pr.CIT for deciding the issue afresh and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee, are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Oder pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 08/03/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
