TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g with an Affidavit was filed praying for the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho observed that since there was no manufacturing activity 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 bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the revenue authorities as well as 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity. Here in the case at hand, the A.R. has been able to show that during the year under consideration there has been some activity of "business". We, therefore, hold that though there was no manufacturing and sales activity, but there certainly was some "business activity", which according to us is much wider, bigger and distinct activity than manufacturing and sale activity. We have to see the consistency of business activity as well from year to year, because business is a continuous activity which cannot be broken into distinct periods. The A.R. through the SOF has shown that though there was no activity in the current year and subsequent year, but there was business and "sale" in the preceding years and also a huge jump of sale in asse....