AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In this view, a notice under section 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee dated December 29, 2013. The main contention of the Commissioner of Income-tax was that the claim of deduction under section80-IB(11A) of the Act was partly allowed by the Assessing Officer by holding that besides the business of rice milling, the assessee was also engaged in the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains. He also mentioned that in the previous year, such claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the stand of the Department. Further, in this order itself, the Commissioner of Income-tax mentioned that even though subsequently on February 26, 2014, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the assessee in ITA Nos. 250 and 251/Chd/ 2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 but since the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is under challenge, the conclusion of the Assessing Officer of allowing the deduction under section 80-IB(11A) of the Act in the assessment year 2010-11 was not in conformity with the provisions of law, self-contradictory and highly erroneous. Fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n contained in the order as passed under section 263 of the Act. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Gurgaon, has ignored the fact that for the earlier years, the matter has been adjudicated and decided by the honourable Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, vide order dated February 26, 2014, and those directions were binding upon the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Gurgaon and, as such, the assessment as set aside is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Gurgaon, as contained in the order under section 263 are totally incorrect, as being adjudicated too and the submissions as made before him have not been considered properly. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of." 5. The learned counsel for the assessee before making elaborate submissions on the merits of the case, stated that the Commissioner of Income- tax has not applied his mind while assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act but was influenced by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect, certificate regarding the machinery, documents showing storage and documents showing transportation respectively. In another reply at page 47 of the paper book, the facts relating to deduction under section 80-IB(11A) of the Act were explained in detail to the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that even the issue of integrated business of handling, storage and transportation and power generation was duly replied by the assessee, the relevant pages of the paper book are 103 to 109. In another letter dated March 7, 2013, the replies regarding the mega project were given to the Assessing Officer. In view of all this, it was emphasised that the Assessing Officer was quite open to the issue of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act with regard to various eligibility conditions provided in the Act, which were queried by her in a number of notices issued to the assessee, which were duly replied by the assessee. After considering all these replies, the Assessing Officer had allowed only a portion of the deduction claimed by the assessee. 7. Another contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the Commissioner of Income-tax in his order, himself affirmed the facts that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also coming out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Act is that the issues which have been raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax in proceedings under section 263 of the Act were all present in the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 also in the assessee's case at the time of hearing before the Assessing Officer. However, at the time of passing of order under section 263 of the Act, the issues were decided by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 250 and 251/Chd/2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Commissioner of Income-tax himself admits that the issues have been decided in favour of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. However, it is also a fact on record that the Department is in appeal against the said order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal before the honourable High Court. Nowhere in his order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has given any finding that any of the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer in the relevant assessment year is not in consonance with the findings given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Time and again, the ....