TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Member For the Assessee : Smt.UrvashiShodhan - Adv. For the Revenue : Smt. Anupama Singla - Sr.DR ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. These sixMiscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee for seeking rectification in order dated 18.06.2018 passed in the above referred appeals. All the Miscellaneous Applications(MA's) were filed on 28.12.2018. 2. In all the MA's theapplicant/assessee has raised common grievances, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the MA's were heard together and are decided by common order. For appreciation of the fact, MA No.174/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2005-06 was treated as lead case. 3. The assessee has made following averments in his MA No.174/AHD/2017; "1. The Applicant above named f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be verified in_ order to arrive at proper finding of fact. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the Revenue appeals back to the file of the Id. CIT (A) to decide the same afresh after verifying the relevant facts, survey material and statements, if any" 3. Hon'ble Member set aside departmental appeal on factually incorrect premises rebutted point wise as below: (i) Audit Report/Form No." WCCB issued by CA is unsigned & undated Detection is pot denied on this basis since signed Audit Report/ Form No. 10CCB was submitted before AO who accepted the same. (Annexure 1) (ii) 'No other evidence to-' corroborate that manufacturing activity of the assessee concern commence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e paper book. Statement of partner taken at the time of survey is filed (Pg 50 - 56 of P/B) It is therefore obvious that the Hon'ble Tribunal has' proceeded on, not one, but many factually incorrect assumptions. It is therefore submitted that there; are- errors apparent on record in setting aside the issue for verification by Id. CIT (A) who allowed deduction u/s 80IB to the applicant by taking into consideration details submitted before AO/ CIT (A) which were filed in the paper book before Hon'ble ITAT. The Applicant respectfully submits that in larger interest of justice the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to recall the impugned order&refix the hearing of the appeal so as to pass appropriate orders." 4. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Sales Tax Department about first sale, first bill dated 31.03.2004. There was a typographical mistake in the Audit Report about the commencement of manufacturing activities in para 8 of Audit report as 28.03.2005 confirmed that 28.03.2004 by Auditor was rectified by letter dated 28.12.2007 and this fact was accepted by the Ld.AO. 5. The Ld.AR for assessee submits that the Tribunal proceeded on factually incorrect presumption. The Ld.AR for the assessee prayed that the order was passed on wrong assumption of facts and without consideration of evidence on record. The Ld.AR for assessee submits that Audit Report duly signed by the Auditor is placed or record. In the form of paper book filed on 06.07.2011. To buttress her submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not applicable. Similarly, the other case law relied by the Ld.AR in CCE Vs. Quality Fun Food and Restaurant (supra) is also based on different facts and is not helpful to the Ld.AR of the assessee. The Ld.DR prayed for dismissal of all miscellaneous application. 7. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the contents of miscellaneous application and the order passed by our predecessor on 17.02.2017. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the Ld.ARof the assessee. We have noted that our predecessor while adjudicating the appeal filed by the Revenue, passed a consolidated order in all six appeals filed by revenue. The sole issue for consideration before the Tribunal was related with the elig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention of the assessee directed Tribunal to consider the documents and pass the order afresh. However, in the present case, all the evidences furnished by assessee were duly considered and appreciated, therefore, the facts of the present case are quite different. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE Vs Quality Fun Food and Restaurant (supra) held that Tribunal without adverting to the basic facts and making independent analysis of the agreements between the parties, relied on the decision and allowed the appeal of the assessee. It was held that Tribunal failed to advert even to basic facts and disposed of the appeal in in summary interfering with the order passed by authority. With utmost regards to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court we ....