AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the Assessee. 2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel and Ld. DR and perused the Paper Book placed on record pertaining to pages 1 to 147 and another Paper Book containing pages 1 to 90 (Paper Book No.2). In ITA No. 1158/Hyd/2015 for AY. 2011-12, Assessee has filed appeal belatedly of 192 days. Assessee has submitted an affidavit and stated that this particular appeal papers have been misplaced by one of the office staff and the same could be traced out and appeal could be filed on 14-09-2015 with a delay of 192 days and since many of the appeals have already been pending on the same issue, there was no deliberate intention to delay in filing of the said appeal. 2.1. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the submissions made therein, we are of the opinion that there is reasonable cause of filing the appeal belatedly and accordingly, the delay is condoned and said appeal is allowed. 3. Briefly stated, Assessee is in the export of granites. There were search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act carried out in the case of Assessee on 04-02-2011. AY. 2011-12 is the search year, whereas in six earlier years also notices were issued u/s. 153A. In all the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r all the years except the amounts involved), as under: "5.2 It is also seen from the records that the AO however considered the claim for deduction/exemption u/s l0B in the order passed u/s 154 dated 25.04.2013. In this order, the AO partially allowed the claim of deduction u/s l0B as he had not allowed the full claim of RS.31,78,02,614/- but allowed only Rs. 19,34,41,639/- and disallowed an amount of Rs. 12,43,60,975/-. The operative part of this order u/s 154 at para 2.5 reads as under: "After examination of the data brought on record and also in light of the ITAT order and keeping in view the departmental stand, the exemption claimed by the Assessee company with regard to export of granite slabs u/s 10B is considered to the extent of cut and polished granite and the same is proportionately allowed." 5.3 Aggrieved against the partial allowance, the appellant preferred an appeal against the 154 order in ITA No. 0320/2013-14. This appeal was disposed off by this office order dated 27.10.2014. 5.4 From the above wordings, the AO appears to have disallowed an amount which is attributable to export of rough blocks. The appellant was therefore asked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and that, no new material has been brought on record to deny the deduction, therefore appears valid. Respectfully, following the orders of the ITAT on the same issue, the deduction u/s. 10B is therefore to be allowed on such "rough granite blocks" subject to the following observations at para 5.7." 4.1. Even though ITAT is very categorical in its order and allowed the deduction even on export of rough granite blocks, Ld. CIT(A), however, went on analyzing the nature of granite blocks exported from Hosur and Ongole units and came to the conclusion that there are certain granite blocks which does not have any dimensions and categorized rough granite blocks (as type 3 invoices) by the CIT(A) in his order and stated that Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 10B in both Hosur and Ongole units on type-1 and type-2 invoices (where dimensions are mentioned) and directed the AO to disallow the deduction claimed on type-3 invoices (where dimensions were not stated) and passed the orders accordingly from AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11. However, while disposing off the appeal in 2011-12 subsequently on 31-12-2014, the Ld. CIT(A) re-examined the whole issue and came to a finding that the so ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed only on the issue of ITAT's order being not accepted by the department. There is no discussion either of the seized material or even of the assessments completed u/s. 143(3) earlier. Assessee also had not raised the contentions before CIT(A). Therefore, the issue whether there is incriminating material or not, whether there was original assessment concluding the issues in favour or against Assessee could not be ascertained. Therefore, even though the additional grounds are legal in nature, the corresponding facts are not available so as to admit them and adjudicate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., [289 ITR 26] (SC) has categorically stated that additional grounds of appeal cannot be admitted, if there are no facts on record. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Group Industries Ltd., [300 ITR 113], where it was held that additional ground could not be considered in the absence of facts on record. In view of this, we are unable to admit the additional grounds and adjudicate the same, as there is no discussion either of the incriminating material or of the earlier proceedings in the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee described as "rough blocks or crude block" in sale invoices by which the Assessing Officer cannot deny the deduction u/s.l0B of the Act on the reason that granite has not been polished. Being so, the Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80HHC/ l0B of the Act on similar lines for the A.Ys. 2000-01 to 2004-05. Accordingly, the Revenue appeals in ITA No. 29 to 33/Hyd/2012 are dismissed. 8. For the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 35/Hyd/12, the issue is relating to allowability of deduction u/s. l0B of the Act which is decided on similar lines as above as discussed in the above, the Revenue appeal is dismissed". 9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 10B, the fact of which was already acknowledged by the CIT(A) in the order for AY 2011-12. However, in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11, Ld. CIT(A) in his own way categorized the export of rough granite blocks into dimensional blocks and un-dimensional blocks and restricted the deduction to so called type-3 un-dimensional blocks. Even though Ld. CIT(A) deviated from the issue in analyzing the nature of rough granite blocks exported, however, he made amends in the order for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Assessee, relying on the sworn statement of Manager Accounts extracted in para 6.2 of the order. He was of the opinion that it is not a case of expense being recorded in the Books of Accounts but not paid. Since no supporting documents or evidence indicating substantial withdrawals from the bank were produced, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition towards cash. 11.1. It was the submission that Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the Cash Book placed before him. Referring to the statement recorded, Ld. Counsel submitted that these moneys were all pertaining to Assessee's Books of Accounts and even the Manger admitted that vouchers were not entered, not only of Assessee but also the Books of Accounts of M/s. Varalakshmi Granites Pvt. Ltd another group company. It was the submission that Assessee has entered the relevant vouchers subsequently and the entries were examined and cash pertains to the business. It is also submitted that Assessee being an export oriented company, the income of which is exempt u/s. 10B, there is no need for keeping any extra cash in the business premises. There are no local sales and entire money pertains to withdrawals from the bank to be paid for staff salaries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... market price and valued at Rs. 59.38 Lakhs. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Ajay Kumar Agarwal in ITA No. 2210/Del/2011, wherein ITAT deleted the addition made on account of valuation of stock on MRP and not on the cost of goods. It also made a contention that Assessee deals in rough granite slabs and there will be defects like odd size slabs and holes in slabs etc., There is a possibility of difference in measurements made edge to edge vis-à-vis net area worked out in the quantification. Assessee relied on the decision in the case of Midwest Gold Ltd., Vs. ACIT ITA No. 1294/Hyd/2014. Without prejudice to the above, it was contended that excess cash and excess stock would increase the profit of the unit and consequent rejection u/s. 10B is eligible and relied on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of DCIT Vs. Planet Online Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1016/Hyd/2007. Ld. CIT(A) however, did not agree on the reason that stock of raw-materials and work in progress has tallied and difference arose only on finished goods and rejects. It was also noted that quantification and measurements were also done by Assessee-company's officials the....