TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise following substantial questions of law for determination of this Court:- "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the GP addition on account of sales made to sister concern ignoring the fact that the assessee had sold goods to independent party charging GP rate of 10.20% as well as ignoring the fact that the GP rate declared by other assessee as referred in assessment order was 20% which is much higher than the GP rate charged from the sister concern? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2009, Annexure A.1 at an income of Rs. 52,50,004/- by making certain additions like Rs. 49,17,319/- on account of sales to sister concern M/s Darshan Udyog at lower rates as compared to non related parties; Rs. 2,33,337/- on account of disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act on labour job carried out by the assessee which does not form part of income derived from industrial undertaking, Rs. 37,500/- on account of disallowance of additional depreciation and Rs. 7,13,812/- on account of disallowance of expenses in respect of payment of bonus and wages. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 29.10.2010,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he year out of total sales of Rs. 8,28,44,016/-, the assessee has made sales of Rs. 6,66,30,924/- to its sister concern M/s Darshana Udyog. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made sales to its sister concerns at lower rate than the rates at which the sales to other parties have been made. In this regard, the Assessing Officer has referred to some instances of sales made by the assessee firm to its sister concern and other parties as noted on page 5 of the assessment order and has come to the conclusion that the assessee has made sales to sister concerns at a less price than sales made to other parties. As noted in the assessment order of M/s Darshana Udyog has shown GP of 5.4% agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of sale made to sister concern are shown less than the rates of sale made to independent parties. However, the AR has submitted that sale rates made to the sister concern and the independent parties are comparable as noted in the chart given in the submission reproduced above. It appears that Assessing Officer has mislead himself in adopting the rates charged from sister concern during much earlier period and comparing the same with the sale rates of independent parties to whom the sales were made in the months of Feb and March, 2007. The AR has stated that almost all the sales have been made to sister concern from April 2006 to 14th February 2007 whereas the sales to other parties have been made during the period from 15th February 2007 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided opportunity to the assessee while relying on rate of GP shown by Safari Bikes. Various case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer are distinguishable as explained by the AR in his written submissions. Moreover, in this case, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB as also noted in page 4 of the assessment order and, therefore, I see no reason for diverting the profit to the sister concern. 3.4 In view of the above and considering the detailed submissions of the AR, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition by adopting GP of 7.5% in respect of the sales made to the sister concern. Accordingly, the addition made on this account is deleted." 7. The above findings were af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Udyog at lower rate. The said finding has not been shown to be perverse or erroneous in any manner being finding of fact and thus does not call for any interference by this Court under Section 260A of the Act. 9. In so far as second issue is concerned, the matter stands concluded by judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Impel Forge and Allied Industries Limited, (2010) 326 ITR 27 wherein while discussing identical issue, it was noticed as under:- "5. Reference to section 80IB of the Act shows that only requirement for its applicability is deriving of income from business referred to in sub sections (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B) of the Act, apart from other conditions with which we are not concerned. It is not the case of the revenue that th....