TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case are that the assessee is into the business of manufacturing activities in Himachal Pradesh and the first year of the manufacturing activity was Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein deduction u/s 80IC of the Act had been claimed and allowed by the Assessing officer by way of order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 16.11.2015. 2.1 Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice in terms of section 263 of the Act dated 05.03.2019 alleging that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act had been allowed by the AO on a wrong appreciation of facts as the area in which the manufacturing unit was located did not fall in the area notified by the CBDT for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. It was alleged in the said show cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subject matter of denial in the subsequent assessment years as per binding judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Micro Instrument and other High Courts. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3.0 The Ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire, dated 21.06. 2016 and as per Question No.17, the assessee was asked about the claim under chapter XVIA with the documentary evidences and to which a detailed reply was submitted before the Assessing Officer by the assessee. Our attention was drawn to the reply as reproduced herein under: "The Unit is engaged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....handigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Surinder Pal Singh reported in [2022] 94 ITR (Trib) 458 (Chd). 3.3 On the allegation of non-application of mind, it was submitted that in Assessment Year 2013-14 the claim u/s 80IC had been first made and referring to the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for that year, our attention was drawn to the following observations of the AO: "During the relevant assessment year the assessee was engaged in the business of Manufacturing of MS Shuttering Plates, Scaffoldings, Fencing Poles and Water Tanks. The gross turnover from the business during the year of Rs. 1,31,53,937/- and books of account have been audited. The assessee has maintained regular books of accounts on computer consisting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On verification of details and information furnished by the assessee, it is found that there is no change in manufacturing activities. After verification and examination of the case, it is found that the assessee fulfills, the conditions as prescribed u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 3.5 Thus, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has examined the past history of the case and also for the current year and that he has made requisite enquiries and has then come to the conclusion about allowance of deduction u/s 80IC and thus, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 was not warranted. The Ld. AR relied upon the following case laws in this regard:- i). Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd. v ITO in I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gued by the Ld. AR that the Unit is not engaged in the manufacturing of article or thing as specified in XIIIth Schedule and that the Unit fulfills all the conditions for claim u/s 80IC and for the purpose of 263, there has to be independent opinion of the Ld. PCIT only and if there is no such independent opinion of the Ld. PCIT, then, the proceedings u/s 263 deserve to be quashed, as in the present case it is very much clear that there was an 'audit objection' which has led to the issuance of notice u/s 263. 6.0 We have given our utmost consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the paper books, brief synopsis and the arguments of the Ld. AR and Ld. Departmental Representative (CIT) and at the very outset, it may be stat....