9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee is acceptable without assigning any reasons therefore. Thus our considered view would be an incorrect manner of rendering a conclusion which revolves entirely on facts and documents which were placed by the assessee before the CIT. Therefore, we are of the view that such finding of the tribunal requires to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh consideration on the said aspect. So far as the issue with regard to the claim for direction under Section 80IB is concerned, it is submitted by the Counsel on either side that such issue does not arise in the assessment year 2009-10. In the result the appeals in so far as the assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 are dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal in so far as the assessment years, as indicated above, are left open. So far as the order of the tribunal pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 on two issues, namely, sales bill and depreciation on lorries is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIT for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2009-10 and nullifying the addition of ₹ 3,24,49,403/- made by the assessing officer on the basis of order u/s 263 of the Act ? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14 by holding the assessment order passed for this assessment year is not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue ignoring the fact that the addition on account of disallowance of the additional depreciation was not made by the assessing officer and by wrongly holding the assessee company as engaged in manufacturing activities? (d) Whether in the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in arriving at finding by interpreting the term Manufacture occurring in the context of Section 80IB that does not necessarily require that the end product of the manufacturing process by completely different from the ingredients, as regard its chemical composition, integral structure or its use ? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 2009-10; whereas substantial question nos.(c), (d), (e) and (f) arose for the assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14. Substantial question nos.(h) and (i) are also common to all the assessment years. So far as assessment years 2008-09, 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 are concerned, all the appeals filed by the revenue are below the threshold limit of the tax effect stipulated by the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Therefore, the appeals with regard to the aforementioned four assessment years stand disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. Consequentially, the questions of law sought to the raised in those appeals for the relevant assessment years are left open. In so far as the assessment year 2009-10 is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata (CIT), while exercising his power under Section 263 of the Act, has stated that there are ample records and documents to indicate that the assessee company had made sales to M/s. Shalimar Hatcheries Limited as evident from the sales bill seized during the search operations forming part of the incriminating evidence. Further it has been stated that sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation is already part of regular books of account of the assessee and there is nothing incriminating therein. The assessee further contended before the tribunal that they had filed a detailed reconciliation statement before the CIT to substantiate the case that the same did not emanate from the seized material. The assessee also gave an explanation for the alleged difference which has been noted by the tribunal in paragraph-7.1 of the impugned order. Further the assessee contended that the seized documents in SPG-2 from pages 18 to 20 contains trial balance for the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 which are part of the regular books of account of the assessee and there is nothing incriminating therein and in any case the seized documents pertain to the assessment year 2013-14 and cannot be termed as incriminating for the assessment year 2009-10. Thus, the argument of the assessee was that the CIT has ignored all the explanations and submissions made by them and merely stated that the assessing officer has not made enquiry with regard to the seized documents and treated the order of the assessing officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The tribunal whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
