Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:
The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-36 Mumbai dated 29/05/2015, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short ‘the Act’), dated 25/03/2014.
In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:-
(1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing asses-see's claim of exemption/so 10AA, for a sum of Rs. 21,32,51,394 ignoring the fact that the undertaking was formed by reconstruction of business already in existence in the name and style H.K. Jewels by way of assignment to the assessee firm viz. H.K. Designs (India)." (2) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the assessee's plea that earlier undertaking has not done any business ignoring the fact emanating from letter dt. 13.09.2005 of H.K. Jewels to SEEPZ Authority, audit report and other things which show that manufacturing activity began prior to 01-04-2006." (3) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's exemption u/s. 10AA ignoring the fact that the assessee has used old machinery and machinery purchased in the name of H.K. Jewels."
(4) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee is no an entrepreneur in terms of section 2(j) of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the letter of approval from Development Commissioner u/s. 15(9) was issued to H.K. Jewels, having PAN AACFH4846F, and not to H. K. Jewels which transferred approval to the assessee".
" (5) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to assess the receipts from sale of dust of Rs.8,77,638/ - and job work charges of Rs.7,87,635/- as income from business (domestic sales) and to allow deduction us. 10AA ignoring the provisions of Section 10AA(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961."
(6) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.
As the Grounds of appeal reveal that the only issue in this appeal relates to the claim of the assessee for deduction under section10AA of the Act. At the time of hearing it was a common point between the parties that similar dispute had come up before the Tribunal in assessment years 2007- 08 to 2009-10 and vide order dated 04/11/2015 in 3213/Mum/2012, and the matter was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in so far as the assessment year 2007-08 is concerned, in the remand proceedings the Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 31/12/2016 has allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10AA of the Act . In this context, a copy of the order of the Assessing Officer has also been placed on record.
4. In the above back ground, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer, who shall apply the order of the Tribunal dated 04/11/2015 (supra) in this year also, in the same manner as done by him in assessment year 2007-08. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
5. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid precedent, the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to carry out the aforesaid directions.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, as above.