TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Panchanama was drawn. Subsequently, a Notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was issued by the Assessing Officer. In response to which the assessee filed returns of income for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 declaring income of Rs. 28,16,70,090 and Rs. 110,88,62,620. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the return was filed under Section 139 of the Act and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed assessment for the three assessment years after making addition on account of deduction claimed under Section 10B of the Act apart from an addition for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in respect of under-valuation of closing stock. The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) but could not succeed. 3. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee in these appeals. The grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2009-10 are reproduced as under : 4. First we take up the issue of denial of deduction under Section 10B of the Act raised in Ground Nos.3 & 4. 5. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the dispute revo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is required only where imports are contemplated for use in manufacturing/production of goods for export. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Caritor India Pvt. Ltd. 369 ITR 463 as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arts Beauty Exports 357 ITR 276 (Del). The learned Authorised Representative also relied upon the decision of the Delhi Tribunal reported in 46 SOT 220. Thus he has contended that when all exports of assessee were approved by the Excise and Custom authorities and there is no violation of any of the conditions under Section 10B then the assessee is eligible for deduction in respect of iron ore mined and excavated and would process through Sesa Plant which is part of the EOU unit. The export of the iron ore was mined and excavated but processed through a non-EOU unit would not contradict any of the conditions under Section 10B of the Act and therefore the status of the assessee as EOU is not in dispute then deduction under Section 10B cannot be denied merely because of outsourcing of processing of iron ore. He has referred to the profit and loss a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a therefore, the EOU has not done any manufacturing or production work eligible for claim under Section 10B of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) concurred with the finding of A.O. while passing the impugned order. The reasoning of the CIT (A) is given in paras 5.15 to 5.19 of impugned order as under : Thus the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (Appeals) held that exemption under Section 10B is not allowable to the assessee in respect of the production of non-EOU unit. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has not disputed that the entire iron ore has been excavated by the assessee from the lease area which has been approved as 100% EOU and the same was processed by Sesa Plant which is located outside bonded area of EOU. Therefore the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) considered the production being the process of iron ore from Sesa Plant as production / manufactured from non-EOU unit. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier assessment year i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, the assessee was not having this Sesa Plant as it was purchased on 31.3.2008 and was put to use in the month of April, 2008 relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10. Thus the assessee was gett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities below on this issue and allow the claim of the assessee. 9. Since the issue on merits has been decided in favour of the assessee therefore the issue regarding validity of assessment under Section 153A becomes academic in nature. Therefore we do not propose to decide this issue. 10. The Ground No.5 is regarding charging of interest under Section 234B & 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature. 11. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd March, 2017. ============= Document 1 1.The assessment order of the Learned A.O and the order of the Learned CIT(A) are opposed to the facts of the case and law, and therefore liable to be cancelled. 2.The Learned A.O and the Learned CIT(A) have failed to appreciate that the assessment for this assessment year has not abated under the Second Proviso to section 153A(1) and therefore, no addition to total income could be made in the absence of any seized material Document 2 indicating undisclosed income. 3.The Learned A.O and the Learned CIT(A) have failed to appreciate that the exemption u/s.10B cannot be restricted / reduced on the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onError: expected an indented block after 'if' statement on line 341 Document 9 therefore cannot be allowed. Moreover, this claim is also more than that claimed in return of income. Further, the appellant had agreed to the fact that machineries for production were not installed in the EOU and permission to shift it has not been obtained/sought. Therefore, 100% claim of exemption u/s 10B is totally without any basis. Document 10 5.18 As regards the claim that upto 50% of earlier years overall production to be treated as having been outsourced to non EOU and be allowed u/s 10B since this is allowable as per trade policy, it is seen that this is not permitted u/s 10B. Moreover, as brought out by the A.O., there is no evidence of having made any Document 11 outsourcing in this regard. Therefore, claim of 50% exemption u/s 10B as per return of income is also not justified. 5.19 With the facts on record, I am in agreement with the Assessing Officer Document 12Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\inetpub\vhosts\taxmanagementindia.com\httpdocs\python_image_text_project\google\direct_extract_text.py", line 19, in from google_doc_api imp....