M/S. BLITZ INTERNATIONAL,ROORKEE vs. ITO, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1346/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2016AY 2010-117 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, which was relevant to the controversy. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the documents and providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC for manufacturing electrical electrodes. The AO disallowed the claim as the commencement date of manufacturing in Form 10CCB differed from the District Industries Centre certificate. The CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence furnished by the assessee under Rule 46A without a formal application.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without a formal application, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-I, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 23.05.2016Pronounced: 24.05.2016

ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 04/12/2015 of the C.I.T.(A)-Dehradun. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal :

1.

“That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad on various factual & legal grounds.

2 Blitz International 2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the assessee deserves an opportunity of being heard in the light of the documentary evidences, which were not available with the ld. A.O. and which were not considered by the ld. CIT(A).

3. That natural justice had been denied to the assessee, in as much as the ld. CIT(A) has not heard the assessee’s A.R. on the first date of hearing ( which held in camp office at Roorkee), while asking the assessee’s A.R. to move a formal application u/r 46A for admission of additional evidences on the next date of hearing, which will be held in next camp at Roorkee, but had not given any further opportunity to the assessee’s A.R. to file the formal application u/r 46A and to explain its case. [ Note : The assessee’s A.R. was handed over the impugned appellate order in the next camp at Roorkee].

4.

That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings, simply on the ground that the assessee had not filed a formal application u/r 46A.

5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the arbitrary action of the ld. A.O. particularly relating to allow ability of deduction claimed u/s 80IC.

6.

That on the facts of the case and under the law, the deduction u/s 80IC of the IT Act, 1961 ought to had been allowed to the assessee.”

2.

From the above grounds, it is gathered that main grievance of the assessee is that the evidence is furnished under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules (AT) 1963, were not considered and that the proper opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee.

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.07.2010 declaring nil income. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO noticed that the assessee stated in form no. 10CCB that it had started the manufacturing of electrical electrodes on 14.4.2009 at claimed the deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). However, in the certificate (Form 119) issued by the District Industries Centre, Roorkee on 20.07.2009 the activity of the assessee firm was proposed to commence from October, 2009. Accordingly the deduction of Rs. 9,75,753/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80IC of the Act was disallowed.

4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the additional evidences under Rule 46A of theI.T.(AT) Rules, 1963, however, the same were not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that no application was filed u/r 46A to admit such additional evidences.

5.

Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to page no. 45 of the 4 Blitz International assessee’s paper book which is copy of the certificate issued by General Manager, District Industries, Haridwar wherein initial date of production/commencement of services has been mentioned as 24th July, 2008 and submitted that the AO was not justified in holding that the commencement of manufacturing activity started in October, 2009. It was further submitted that the said certificate although was furnished before the ld. CIT(A) but it was not considered for the reasons best known to him, It was contended that the assessee rightly claimed the exemption u/s 80IC of the Act, therefore, the ld. CIT was not justified in confirming the action of the AO.

6. In his rival submissions, the ld. AR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the documents furnished before the ld. CIT(A) were not furnished before the AO and no application was moved for admission of those documents, as additional evidences, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not admitting the additional evidences.

7.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In 5 Blitz International the present case, it appears that the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee by presuming that the manufacturing activity commenced in the month of October, 2009. However, the assessee furnished an additional evidence in the form of certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hardwar (copy of which is placed at page no. 45 of the assessee’s paper book), the said document was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) only for the reason that a proper application for admission of the said document u/r 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963, was not furnished by the assessee along with the said document. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) has not denied that the assessee furnished a certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Haridwar. It also appears that the said certificate although was not available to the AO but it was furnished before the ld. CIT(A) and is relevant to resolve the present controversy. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by considering the documents furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 24/05/2016).

More judgments on Section 80IC

All 1,180 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IC →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →