2013 (10) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the amount. It was further submitted that the submissions made by them for one year would be equally applicable to the other. We therefore proceed with the facts for A.Y. 05-06. 3. The facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are as under; 4. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and fabrication of plant and equipments, storage tanks and piping etc. and erectioning the same at the site of the customers. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 25.10.2005 showing total income of Rs. 39,66,727/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18.12.2007 and the total income was determined at Rs. 73,57,930/-. Aggrieved by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, the submissions of the appellant and the assessment order. It must be seen that the appellant has on its own indicated in the return that the value of plant and machinery exceeded the qualifying limit of Rs. 1 crore and on being questioned It was clarified that the break-up of plant & machinery and tools and tackles is as under:- Plant and Machinery : Rs. 8269917/- Tools and Tackles : Rs. 7196098/- Total : Rs. 15465715/- 4.3.1 The details of plant and machinery, tools &. tackles are outlined at pages 2 to 6 of the assessment order. Coming to the contention of the appellant that hydraulic jacks are purchased in lots, neither there was such classification indicated in the details furnished before the AO, nor there was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er year. He further submitted that for A.Y. 04-05, the Hon. Tribunal had restored the issue to the file of A.O. with directions to decide the issue afresh. He placed on record, the copy of order in ITA NO. 3225/Ahd/2008 order dated 03.02.2012. He therefore submitted that since the facts of the case the year under appeal are identical to that of earlier year following the order for A.Y. 04-05, the matter be restored to A.O for verification and with necessary directions. 8. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O. and CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that for A.Y. 2004-05, the Assessee was disallowed deduction under 80IB as the Assessee's unit was not considered....