AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax (Appeals) are contrary to law and based on erroneous undertaking of the facts. 03. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and interpretation of law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the income earned by the appellant as income not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the provisions of section 80IB on a plain reading and literal interpretation of the law and hence deserves to be deleted. 04. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of not granting deduction to the appellant U/s.80IB of the Income tax Act. 05. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and interpretation of law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- out of unsecured loan taken from M/s.National Minerals and Akshat Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t furnish any details of diesel purchased for running generator or any other evidence that a portion of goods were manufactured in the assessee's own facility nor any evidence that goods manufactured in the facility of M/s.Nagarwala Chemical Industries were under the supervision of the partner using his technical knowhow. The ld.AR appearing before us now raised modified and additional grounds, contending that PVC/TPR insulated wires and cables of the value of Rs.19,12,835/- were produced in the industrial undertaking of the assessee using their own machineries and power generated from diesel generator and that expenses for diesel were debited under the head repair and maintenance. It was pointed out that goods manufactured through job work have indeed been sold during the year and nothing was available in the closing stock. Even though the AO and the ld.CIT(A) have concluded that the assessee did not undertake any manufacturing or production activities in its industrial undertaking, they did not doubt the purchase of raw material and nowhere concluded that the entire raw material purchased by the assessee was consumed in job work nor even doubted the wages debited to the accounts.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s then A.R.has been hospitalized owing to a severe heart attack and he could not attend before the A.O. in response to several notices and show cause notices issued. I am incline to agree with the appellant that there are genuine causes which prevented it to comply with various notices/letters issued by the A.O. In view of natural justice I am considering and admitting the various evidences submitted by the appellant firm for the purpose of adjudicating this appeal. 7.3. The appellant has submitted before me the confirmation letters from whom the unsecured loans were taken along with their PAN and copy of Income tax return. Before me the ld.AR contended that unsecured loans from National Minerals, and Akshat Leasing and Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd. were squared up during the year under consideration. The amount involved is Rs.14,00,000/- (6,00,000 + 8,00,000). I have considered the submission made by the ld.AR that the unsecured loan from the doctor Alka Gupta, Sunderlal Agarwal & Sons HUF and Suresh Agarwal & Sons HUF appeared to be genuine and therefore I direct the AO to delte from the addition made from the assessment order made. However with regard to the loan of Rs.14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence. (4) It is therefore prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. (5) The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal. 10.1. The first ground is against deletion of addition made u/s.40A(ia) of the Act. Ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO, whereas ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided this issue in paragraph No.6.1 of his order and has given a finding on fact that the appellant had deducted TDS on commission and interest expenses and the payment has been made before the due date. The ld.CIT(A) has also given a finding that as regards freight and octroi it is seen from the ledger account produced before him that the sum paid on each occasion is not exceeding Rs.20,000/- and not liable for deduction of TDS. This finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing anything on record, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant. 02. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the disallowances made by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are contrary to law and based on erroneous undertaking of the facts. 03. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and interpretation of law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the income earned by the appellant as income not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the provisions of section 80IB on a plain reading and literal interpretation of the law and hence deserves to be deleted. 04. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of not granting deduction to the appellant U/s.80IB of the Income tax Act. 06. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in ITA No.4144/Ahd/2008 for AY 2004-05(supra) while deciding this issue has held as under:- "2. The facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) dated 31-3-2008 and the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated 29-12-2006 were that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of insulated cable with PVC tape and plastic granules etc. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IB in respect of job work from M/s.Nangalwala Chemical Industries. This issue about the admissibility of deduction u/s.80IB had gone up to the Tribunal and respected co-ordinate Bench-C vide ITA No.3207/Ahd/2007 Assessment Year 2004-05 order dated 12-11-2010 has restored it back to the file of the CIT(A) with certain directions. In view of this, the preliminary argument of Ld.Authorized Representative Shri M.K.Patel is that the issue being debatable, therefore, out of the ambits of levy of penalty. It has also been argued that all the facts in relation to claim of deduction u/s.80I were duly placed before the Assessing ....