Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”
Before: HON’BLE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
ITO - 10(3)(3) Provenance Foods Pvt. Mumbai Ltd. बिधम/ Pin- F-1, F-17. Baphan Ware Housing Complex, GAT Vs. No. 102/103 at Post Jaulke, Tal Dindori, Dist- Nashik, Nashik-422201 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAECP7955N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Abi Rama Karhkiyen, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24.09.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appeal filed by the assesseeis against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 24, Mumbai dated 21.03.16 for AY 2010-11.
At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of several calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is company engage in the business of manufacturing of food seasonings, marinades, brine systems and compounded flavor. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 22.09.10 declaring income of Rs. 40,632. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed by the AO on 22.03.13 determining income at Rs. 52,01,205/-.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Now before us, the assessee has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds.
The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in reducing the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above ground raised by the assessee in para no. 2.4 to 2.4.2 of its detailed order and after having gone through the orders passed by revenue authorities, we find from the records that even after being required to file the details in respect of bank realization of the export proceeds, the assessee furnished a bank realization certificate for an amount of Rs. 7,21,88,815/- as against total export turnover of Rs. 10,82,68,158/-. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the revenue allowed deduction of Rs. 1,03,25,457/- in place of Rs. 1,52,42,322/- as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee in absence of documentary evidence.
Even before us, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.