TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the appellant on absurd grounds without going into the facts and circumstances of the case and also not considering the fact that the rebate was being allowed to the appellant from year to year after thorough scrutiny u/s 143(3) for all the years since Assessment Year 2008-09." 3) The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30th November 2014 for Assessment Year 2014-15 at 'NIL'. In the return of income, assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to Rs. 44,86,232/-. This was examined by the learned Assessing Officer. On detailed examination, he held that a. the machinery available with the assessee does not support the claim of the assessee b. electric consumption cannot support the claim of the quantum of production and c. Evidences produced by the assessee for movement of goods are insufficient to support the claim in absence of toll tax receipts. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the claim under Section 80IC of the Act is not sustainable. Thus, assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th December, 2016 and total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 45,18,120/- wherein deduction und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has also charged VAT/CST on above bills. The invoices are genuine having complete address, phone no, their factory address and other. The mode of transportation, Lorry no has also given on the invoices. The assessee has also discharged his liability through banking channel. The evidence to this effect is also enclosed on page nos 64 to 83. From the said above it is evident that new plant and machinery was purchased by the assessee for production in Unit III and not by splitting up or reconstruction of the business. He submitted that for the small defects in the bills produced by the assessee such as name date amount involves et cetera for these reasons the learned assessing officer is rejecting that assessee uses the machinery for the manufacturing of goods. c. With respect to the movement of the goods, assessee submitted that goods are produced at Unit III and sent to Delhi and other branches for all supplies to various government departments and other buyers. Goods are transported from the manufacturing units at Ponta sahib to transport through truck of the assessee after due entry and clearance from the Excise Department. The assessee has already submitted Excise get passes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 4486232/- for this Ay, which was denied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT Appeal. Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in pipes and manufacture of waste disposal bins and containers for onward sales to various government agencies and Municipal Boards on tender basis. During the year under consideration the business of the assesse was carried out from the manufacturing units at Unit-II, Village Puruwala, Paonta Sahib, and Unit-Ill, Village Puruwala, Paonta Sahib, and trading units at Sonepat, Ghaziabad and Patna. The assessee claimed deduction U/s 80IC in respect of activity of manufacture of disposal bins and containers in Unit-Ill situated at Paonta Sahib. Admittedly, production at Unit-Ill at Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh as discussed by the Ld A.O., started on 30/03/2010. Evidence in respect to commencement of production from excise department/Department of Industries and Vat Department is placed by the assessee. Therefore, it is apparent that this is not the first year of the claim of deduction under section 80 IC of the income tax act. Assessee has submitted that for the A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, all the cases were selected in scrutiny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been shown by the assessee. However, assessing officer has not produced any report or any other evidence that how the assessee was producing in the last year when the deduction under section 80 IC was given on what changed during this year. Merely consumption of the electricity without any comparative analysis of without any further evidence, it cannot be said that goods have not been manufactured by the assessee more precisely when in the last year it has been accepted. The learned assessing officer should have further investigated the facts that how assessee is able to produce the goods with lesser number of units consumed during this year with a special investigation on the product mix, the production process and machine hours. In absence of the basic enquiry, merely rejecting the explanation of the assessee without obtaining further evidences, AO could not have rejected the production of the assessee. With respect of the transportation of goods, only reason mentioned by the learned assessing officer is that assessee could not produce Toll tax receipt. However, the AO himself has admitted that the assessee has provided VAT form 26A which shows that trucks crossed Himachal Prad....