TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that the assessee filed his return of income (in his life time) on 30.10.1998 declaring total income of Rs. 1,16,510/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 12,37,964/- u/s 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( 'the Act' for short), alongwith Tax Audit report in Form No.10CCAC. This Return of Income (ROI) was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at the returned income. Subsequently, the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons, were initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 20.09.2004. Similar notices were sent for other A.Ys as well. The assessee objected to these notices issued, covering all assessment years, in which the A.O. formed his opinion regarding reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. According to the assessee notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, except for A.Y.2003-04, being after the lapse of four years prescribed for initiation of this action are illegal and invalid because the assessee has disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for these assessments. The A.O. has ignored this objection, because according to him, this time limit of four years applies in cases where assessments have been completed u/s 143(3) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed, in the first round, by his predecessor CIT(A), and has dismissed this common legal ground raised in all the appeals. 2.3 The next ground is against trading addition has been allowed and the trading addition of Rs. 2,89,123/- has been deleted. 2.4 The next common ground regarding disallowance of deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act being of Rs. 2,37,964/- Rs. 1,95,18,358/-, Rs. 68,95,213/-, Rs. 13,70,833/- and Rs. 14,70,699/- in assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04, respectively, claimed on export of dressed and one side polished dimensional marble blocks has been allowed in all the years, after following the Appellate Tribunal order. 2.5 The next common grounds in A.Y.s 1999-2000 and 2000-01( two A.Ys) was regarding reduction of 90% of export incentive received while calculating deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed this issue in favour of the assessee in these two A.Ys. 2.6 The next common ground in A.Ys 2002-03 and 2003-04 was relating to disallowance of depreciation on export oriented unit, which have been confirmed. 2.7 The other common ground in all the years was regarding claim of depreciation on vehicles, which has been allowed. 3. Aggrieved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amed in Appeal No.29/2008 is accordingly answered in DB ITA No.29/2008 & ors CIT Udaipur v. M/s Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt Ltd & ors 13/13 favour of the assessee-respondent and against the appellant-Revenue." Accordingly, we cannot allow this common ground raised in Revenue's appeal and by respectfully following the above judgements of the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court, we dismiss common grounds and uphold the impugned deletions. 3.4 Against the deletion of the trading addition of Rs. 2,89,123/- in A.Y. 1998-99 , the ld. D.R. has argued that the G.P. rate disclosed in this year is on lower side as compared to earlier year. Since the books of accounts of the assessee having been lost and this fact being accepted by the Assessing Officer, the application of average rate of G.P. in the two past years is wholly justified. The ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision taken in the first ground and the position of facts and contentions of the parties remaining same and similar he has deleted the trading addition. 3.5 Before us also earlier arguments have been reiterated. We have found that the G.P. rate in this year has been on lower side. However, the decrease in G.P. rate stands expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 4.4 In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 229/Jodh/2014 for A.Y 1999-2000 stand dismissed. A.Y. 2000-01 - ITA No. 230/JU/2014 5. In A.Y 2000-01, vide ITA No. 230/Jodh/2014, the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in. 1. directing to allow deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act on export of marble blocks which were not polished as required by item (x) of the XII Schedule and ignoring the fact that there was no value addition in terms of cost of exported blocks as required by Circular No. 693 dated 17.11.1994. 2. allowing the deduction u/s 80HHC on income derived from sale of REP licence." 5.1 As is evident both the above grounds are same and similar to grounds raised in A.Y 1999-2000 and are grounded on same facts, Therefore, with similar reasoning we dismiss both the above grounds. Therefore, appeal of the Revenue for A.Y 2000-01 is dismissed. 5.2 In the result, the appeal for A.Y 2000-01 in ITA 230/Jodh/2014 also stands dismissed. A.Y 2002-03 ITA No.231/Jodh/2014 6. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "On the facts and in the circumstances of....