2015 (4) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onclusion in the order of other First Appellate Authority. That was justified because the Commissioner relied upon a site inspection to conclude that the windmill project was commissioned on 31st March, 2006 at village Tisangi, District Sangli. If this fact was verified and ascertained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), then, his order should not have been interfered with. That was not perverse. The Tribunal has interfered with it merely because it holds another view. This course was impermissible in law. 3. Upon a perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal, we are unable to agree with Mr. Toprani. The Assessing Officer had before him a return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 30,51,480/-. That re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on perusal of their replies, the Assessing Officer found that the site is in Nandurbar District of the State of Maharashtra. The transport bills reveal that the windmill components were transported to Dhalgaon site village Kuntlapur via Kuchiiphata, District Sangli. The Assessing Officer has compiled the transport delivery site and invoice notices and then concluded that there are serious discrepancies and which revealed that the claim was not genuine. The assessee's reply that previously the windmill site was at Dhalgaon, District Nandurbar but it was then installed at Tisangi village, District Sangli. It is stated that Dhalgaon was only a proposed site. However, the Assessing Officer found that there were no components and which wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents which were on record. It also records that it is surprising that a project of this magnitude was commissioned and within a short span as noted in paragraph 10 of the Tribunal's order. The certificate issued by the other entity M/s. Suzlon (pertinently this was a joint-venture project) indicate that the material supplied to the assessee against the invoice number set out in the Tribunal's order at paragraph 10 dated 27th March, 2006 was dispatched from their works at Puducherry. In such circumstances, it was physically impossible for the consignment to cover a distance of 800 kilometers and reach a site which was earlier proposed in Nandurbar District and later on in Sangli District. Therefore, the perversity in the Commissioner....