TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 07.01.2014 cannot be said to 'erroneous' much less prejudicial and therefore, is not amenable to revisionary Jurisdiction under section 263. 3. Without prejudice to our contention that allowance of deduction under section 80 IC allowed by ld. AO in the draft assessment order cannot be said to erroneous in any manner whatsoever and therefore, is not prejudicial to interest of revenue making even such order amenable to Revision under section 263 of the Act. Assuming without admitting that some errors as alleged in order dated 29.03.2016 under section 263 have crept into such draft order, time limit prescribed for exercise of Revision power under the Act has expired, as admittedly draft assessment order was passed on 06.03.2013. PCIT failed to appreciate that what cannot be done directly cannot be sought to be done indirectly by revising lawful Assessment order passed in conformity with directions of DRP under section 144C (13). 4. Without prejudice to above, PCIT grossly erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that Ld. AO passed draft assessment order 06.03.2013 after making due enquiries, thus initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act to revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of the auditor u/s 80IC of the Act was submitted by the Assessee. In the said report, details of the assessee are mentioned from column 1 to 13 and for eligible business u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, were mentioned in column no. 25 & 26 of the report. In column no. 25, it was mentioned that the unit is situated in notified area with description of area. The date of commencement of production is mentioned as 15th May, 2007. In column no. 25(f) the auditor mentioned whether the enterprise is involved in manufacture of any article or thing specified in Schedule-XTV. In this column, the auditor ticked 'yes' column and mentioned the item manufactured as Pharma products/chloromint candy. The item Pharma product is covered by Serial no.12 of part-C of Schedule-XIV. However, it is noticed that the assessee company is not involved in manufacturing of Pharma products as mentioned in schedule XIV, as was found during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12. 6. The Pr. CIT, Gurgaon further observed that the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IC was examined in A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the facts are same. The claim of deduction was disallowed in the draft assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 29.03.2016 u/s 263 passed by the Pr. CIT, the assessee company has filed the present appeal before us. 9. The Ld. AR submitted that the claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Act made by the assessee was widely examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings and the deduction was allowed after considering all the documents and submissions filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts of the present assessment year are different from that of A.Y. 2011-12. The Ld. AR further submitted that in A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee did not manufacture the said Pharma products, though the assessee fulfilled all the conditions to claim deduction under Section 80IC of the Act, due to technical error in Form 10CCB, the claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Act was rejected by the Assessing Officer against which the assessee filed appeal and the Tribunal remanded back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the Pr. CIT has taken a different view than the Assessing Officer and hence does not attract invocation of Section 263 of the Act. 10. The Ld. DR submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of a variety of confectionary productions which includes Big Babool, Alpenlibe, Centre Fresh, Center Fruit, Center Shok, Chater Pater, Chlor-mint, Choco-tella, Cofitos, Happydent White, Protex Happydent, Marbels, Mentos etc. From these products it can be seen that all products are not that of pharma, chlor-mint, ayurved based products. There are confectionary products as well. The Pr. CIT after perusal of the quarterly statement furnished by the assessee company with the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut for F.Y. 2008-09, noticed that the assessee company had also manufactured other products such as 'chewing gum', 'toffee' and 'bubble gum' in addition to manufacturing of Pharma Products for which the assessee company is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act as these article or things are not specified in the Fourteenth Schedule. But the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiries or verification which should have been made before allowing any relief u/s 80IC of the Act to the assessee company. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ....