TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also the Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2001-02. 3. The relevant material facts, so far as these appeals are concerned, are like this. The assessee is engaged in the business as manufacturer and exporter of diamond studded gold jewellery from SEEPZ, Mumbai. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 10A for the assessment year 2001-02 in respect of SEEPZ unit. While scrutinizing this claim, the Assessing Officer notice that assessee's assets of Rs.1.36 crore included cost of plant and machinery, amounting to Rs.1,00,37,227, and air conditioning plant, amounting to Rs.5,10,310. The Assessing Officer noted that these assets were purchased by the assessee from M/s C I Jewels Limited, which is a partner in the assessee's f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o confirmed but quantum of disallowances was reduced to Rs.5,000 in respect of conveyance expenses, Rs.15,000 in respect of other expenses and Rs.25,000 in respect of staff welfare expenses. None of the parties is satisfied. The assessee is aggrieved that the CIT(A) ought to have allowed the assessee deduction under section 10A, and ought to have further held that interest income, on the facts of this case, was also eligible for deduction under section 10A, the Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the deduction under section 80 HHC being allowed to the assessee even as the assessee did not file requisite auditor certificate before the Assessing officer and did not even make that claim before the Assessing Officer. The assessee is also aggrieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers of the authorities below and submits that when a unit is sold as such, as is now the case of the assessee, entire assets and liabilities of the unit need to be transferred, whereas, on the facts of the present case, there is an uncontroverted finding of the lower authorities that all the assets and liabilities were not transferred. If at all the matter needs to be remitted to the file of one of the lower authorities, according to the learned Departmental Representative, it should be restored to the file of the CIT(A). 6. Having given our careful consideration to the rival contentions, we are of the considered view that the matter should indeed be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... audi t report was filed for the first time before the CIT(A). Reliance has also been placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Goetze India Pvt Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323). We have noted that this case specifically states that it deals only with the powers of the assessing authority and not the appellate authority. In Goetze's case, the Supreme Court held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. In this decision, it is made clear that the power of the Tribunal to admit an additional ground under s. 254 is not affected by its decision. It is also clarified that the case was concerned with only the power of the assessing authority and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertificate. Therefore, as far as grant of deduction under section 80 HHC is concerned, we see no infirmity in the same. To sum up, our conclusions for the assessment year 2001-02 are as follows: * The issue of admissibility of deduction under section 10 A is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in the light of observations made above. * The adhock disallowances of expenses are deleted. * The action of the CIT(A) is grant of deduction under section 80 HHC, by admitting the claim on merits and the requisite audit at the appellate stage is upheld. 7. In the result, assessee's appeal (ITA No.3014/Mum/04) and is partly allowed in the terms indicated above, and the appeal of t....