9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial to the interest of the revenue and thus the order passed under section 263 is bad in law and need to be quashed. 2. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that all the relevant details viz. Audit Report in Form 10CCB along with financial statements of undertaking duly signed and acknowledged by the jurisdictional office for claim of deduction under section 801E of Rs.32,02,84,616 was submitted by the Appellant in absence of availability of filing of online Form on Income Tax Portal. The learned PCIT erred in holding that AO has failed to make necessary enquiry and bring on record all facts without appreciating that the specific query was raised in the assessment proceedings on issue under consideration on claim of deduction of Rs. 32,02,84,616/- under section 801E of the Act and all relevant details in respect thereof were filed. 3. The learned PCIT erred in holding that the AO has not conducted any enquiry on cash deposit of Rs.6,87,500 in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during demonetization period and disallowance is called for under section 69A of the Act without appreciating that all relevant details in respect thereof was filed. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear under consideration, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In response thereto, the assessee filed detailed submissions and objected to the initiation of revision proceedings. Vide impugned order dated 27/03/2022 passed under section 263 of the Act, the learned PCIT rejected the submissions of the assessee and held that the AO has failed to conduct all necessary inquiries warranted on facts of the case, therefore, the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The learned PCIT also placed reliance upon clause (a) of Explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the learned PCIT vide impugned order set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to reframe the assessment de novo after conducting all the necessary inquiries and verifications as warranted on the facts of the case. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ('learned AR') submitted that during the year, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IE in respect of its undertaking in Assam. It was further submitted that the assessee has another undertaking in Himachal P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. The assessee has two manufacturing undertakings, one at District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing printers and parts thereof, and another undertaking at Guwahati (Assam), which is engaged in the business of manufacturing ink, make-up, solvents and consumables thereof. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Act in respect of Himachal Pradesh undertaking from the assessment year 2008-09. Further, in respect of Assam undertaking, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IE of the Act from the assessment year 2016-17 onwards. From the perusal of statutory notices issued by the AO under section 143(2) and section 142(1) along with questionnaire, forming part of the paper book, we find that the AO raised queries regarding the deduction claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration, particularly the deduction claimed under section 80IE of the Act, which were duly responded by the assessee. The AO vide assessment order dated 06/12/2019 allowed the deduction claim by the assessee. Vide impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, it was inter-alia alleged that the assessee has not complied with the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of Himachal Pradesh undertaking, forming part of the paper book from pages no. 22 - 25, we find that same is dated 27/10/2017. Further, from the perusal of the status of the audit report under section 80IC, as available on the website of the Income Tax Department, we find that the said Form was filed originally on 27/10/2017 and the same has also been verified. Thus, once Form No. 10CCB, which was e-filed by the assessee, has been duly verified by the Revenue, the allegation that the Form No. 10CCB filed by the assessee in respect of Himachal Pradesh undertaking is unsigned, appears to be completely without any basis. 11. It is the claim of the assessee that Form No. 10CCB in respect of section 80IC unit was filed electronically before the date of filing of return of income, however, Form No. 10CCB could not be filed electronically under section 80IE(6) of the Act as there was no provision for submitting the said Form in respect of deduction claimed under section 80IE of the Act, during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee filed the audit report physically in Form No. 10CCB duly signed and verified by the Chartered Accountant along with the profit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
