TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2011 read as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in arriving at conclusion based on personal assumption and surmises. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in blaming the appellant by forcing his own judgment. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in interpreting logic of scrutiny assessment. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in understanding difference between awareness of law and facts of transaction. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding of suppression of taxable income. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in citing of decision of various court decision but avoided more relevant cases decision quoted by same courts. 7. PRAYERS The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter very and /or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal. ITA No. 3348/Mum/2011: 2. Assessee, an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of watches, filed his return of income on 30. 10. 2006 declaring total income of Rs. 25. 29 lakhs. Assessing officer (AO) finalised the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 04. 11. 2008, determining the total income at Rs. 32. 59 lakhs. During the course of hearing before us, Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee did not press ground no. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant & machinery, while passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act, he relied upon the cases of L. Ve. Vairavan Chettiar (72 ITR114), Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe (5 ITR 621), Dalmia Cement Ltd. (013 ITR 0415), Refrigera - tion and Allied Industries Ltd. (247 ITR 012), Capital Bus Services (123 ITR 404), G R Shipping (ITA No. 822/M/2005), Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. (25 ITR 265), Vayithri Plantation Ltd. (128 ITR 675), G. N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 and Swati Synthetics Ltd. (ITA No. 1165/M/2006). Departmental Representative stated that the assessee had not used the building, plant and machinery during the year under appeal, that use of assets was a precondition for allowing depreciation. He supported the order of the FAA. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that AO and FAA had disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that assessee had not used the assets for business during the year under consideration. We find that in the matter of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal(supra), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has dealt with the identical issue. In that matter the assessee had argued that assets were ready for use and therefore deprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the assessment proceeding, AO had made following additions to the income of the assessee: i)Disallowance of depreciation (Rs. 3. 67 lakhs), ii)Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) in respect of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 49, 829/-iii)Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB (Rs. 2, 62, 323/-)iv)Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure (Rs. 50, 000/-). AO was the opinion that additions made under the head depreciation of assets, LTCG and 80IB of the Act, had to be considered as concealment of income. While passing the penalty order, he held that assessee had not carried out any manufacturing activities during the year, that he had only purchased watches locally from India and had exported outside the country. Referring to the decisions of various High Courts including the decision Dinehskumar Gulabchand Agarwal (supra), he held that depreciation was not allowable because assets had been not actually put to use during the year. With regard to disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act, in respect of LTCG of Rs. 49, 829/-, he held that assessee had sold shares of M/s. Nova Capacitors Ltd. , resulting in LTCG of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, that during the course of assessment proceedings AO had unearthed the information that shares transaction were not rotated through authorized stock exchange and no STT was paid, that in such a situation there was no reason to give impression in return of income that he had fulfilled all the conditions for claim of such exemption, that the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s. 271(l)(c). He further held that that deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, amounting to Rs. 2, 62, 323/- was claimed by the assessee even though he had not derived profits/gains from Industrial undertaking, that the assessee had earned income on account of sale of machinery, that income from sale of machinery could not be termed profit derived from Industrial undertaking , that the assessee had ignored the auditors' report given in Form No. 10CCB, that the auditors had certified the profits and gains derived from undertaking which were allowable u/s 80IB to the extent of Rs. 2, 28, 54, 198/-, that while filing the return of income, that the assessee had deliberately increased the quantum of deduction by Rs. 2, 62, 323/- and has claimed deduction u/s. of Rs. 2, 31, 16, 521/-, that i....