TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condonation of delay and giving out reasons which led to the delay in filing of appeal by 127 days. The A.R. appearing, read out the reasons recorded in the Affidavit. The DR, did not object to the maintainability of the appeal on delay in filing of appeal and the reasons recorded in the Affidavit. 4. As there was no objection by the DR, we condone the delay. We, therefore, asked the A.R. to proceed with the matter. 5. The assessee has filed two grounds of appeal, both are on the issue of disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 19,36,104/-, wherein the revenue authorities held that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 6. The facts emerging from the orders of revenue authorities and the Statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivity during the year by the assessee, which was being done through reputed sub contractors, the expenses of Rs. 15,25,131/- and depreciation of Rs. 4,10,972/-, aggregating to Rs. 19,36,104/- could not be allowed, and he sustained the addition made by the AO. 8. The assessee is now before the ITAT. 9. Before us, the A.R. appearing on behalf of the assessee gave the basic details of the business of the assessee and pointed out that the basic facts pertaining to the current year had been laid out in the statement of facts [SOF filed along with form No. 35, before the CIT(A)]. The A.R. pointed out that though it is a fact that in the current year, there was no manufacturing activity but to hold that there was no business is incorrect, becaus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the SOF on which the A.R. has relied upon along with the other documents. The year under consideration is assessment year 2007-08, and we find from the orders of the CIT(A) that it is an undisputed fact that assessee had been carrying on the business from assessment year 2000-01 (when the business was set up). From the SOF, we find that the business in the form of sales was conducted in assessment year 2008-09. Nowhere in either of the orders of the revenue authorities, do we find that the authorities had held that there was no "business activity". We find that both the revenue authorities had restricted their thought process in the "manufacturing activity and sales". From the details in SOF and also in schedules 6 & 7 appended along with t....