The ACIT,Navsari Circle, Navsari V. M/s. H.L. Equipments, Surat

ITA 1250/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6288 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Additional evidence; Tax effect
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 80IB

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 AND ITA NO.663/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 M/S.H.L. EQUIPMENTS SURVEY NO.60/1 NR. SHUKAN BUNGALOWS GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. VS. JCIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. ./ ITA NO.1250/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 ACIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. VS. M/S.H.L. EQUIPMENTS SURVEY NO.60/1 NR. SHUKAN BUNGALOWS GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. ./ ITA NO.1208/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 M/S.HLE ENGINEERS P.LTD. SURVEY NO.60/1 GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 NR.SHUKAN BUNGALOWS OPP: MAHESHWARI BHAVAN CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. PAN : AABCH 4724 N VS. JCIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 2 ./ ITA NO.1026/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 JCIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. VS. M/S.HLE ENGINEERS P.LTD. SURVEY NO.60/1 GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 NR.SHUKAN BUNGALOWS OPP: MAHESHWARI BHAVAN CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. PAN : AABCH 4724 N ./ ITA NO.665/AHD/2016 AND ITA NO.2981/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 HEERASONS CHEMICALS P.LTD. SURVEY NO.60/1 GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 NR.SHUKAN BUNGALOWS OPP: MAHESHWARI BHAVAN CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. PAN : AAACH 5979 G VS. ACIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. ITA NO.3075/AHD/2014 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 ACIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. VS. HEERASONS CHEMICALS P.LTD. SURVEY NO.60/1 GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 NR.SHUKAN BUNGALOWS OPP: MAHESHWARI BHAVAN CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. PAN : AAACH 5979 G ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 3 ./ ITA NO.2953/AHD/2015 AND ITA NO.666/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 YASHASVI RASAAYN P.LTD. SURVEY NO.60/1 GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 NR.SHUKAN BUNGALOWS OPP: MAHESHWARI BHAVAN CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. PAN : AAACY 1854 F VS. JCIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. ITA NO.2849/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 JCIT, NAVSARI RANGE NAVSARI. VS. YASHASVI RASAAYN P.LTD. SURVEY NO.60/1 GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1&2 NR.SHUKAN BUNGALOWS OPP: MAHESHWARI BHAVAN CITY LIGHT SURAT 395 007. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR WITH SHRI PARIN SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY AGARWAL, CIT-DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 23/03/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/04/2017 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS CONTAINS ELEVEN APPEALS; OUT OF WHICH SEVEN APPEALS ARE FILED BY FOUR DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, VIZ. M/S.H.L. EQUIPMENTS ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 4 AND M/S.YASHASVI RASAYAN PVT. LTD. ARE AGAINST ORDE RS OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 3.8.2015 AND 5.1.2016, WHILE M/S.HLE ENGINEER S P.LTD. IS AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 3.3.2015. M/S.HEERASON S CHEMICALS P.LTD. IS AGGRIEVED WITH ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 5.1. 2016 AND 23.9.2014. REVENUE IS IN APPEALS AGAINST ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT( A) DATED 22.2.2013, 3.3.2015 AND 23.9.2014. ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS A.Y.2009-10. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY T HIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL, AT VERY OUTS ET POINTED OUT THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THESE APPEALS A RE COMMON. HE POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE, FAC TS FROM THE FIRST APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 BE TAKEN. THE LD.DR D ID NOT DISPUTE THIS PROPOSITION. THEREFORE, WITH THE ASSISTANCE O F THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD . 3. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BEFORE US THAT THOUGH TH E APPELLANTS I.E. ASSESSEES AS WELL AS REVENUE HAVE TAKEN NUMBER OF G ROUNDS IN THEIR APPEALS, BUT MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEES REVOLV ES AROUND TWO ISSUES VIZ. (A) THE LD.AO HAS ERRED IN REJECTING BO OK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING PROFIT WITH THE HELP OF SEC TION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, (B) THE LD.AO HAS ERRED IN MA KING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD TRAVELLED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL, A ND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.5.2015 IN ITA NO.1303/AHD/2013 HAS S ET ASIDE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATIO N. BUT, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADHERE TO DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AND DID NOT ANALYSIS THE DETAILS. HE HAS SUMMARILY BY REJECTED ALL THE CONT ENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING ANY SPECIFIC FINDING. ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 5 5. WHILE IMPUGNING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SURVEY U NDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ON 29.9.2008. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9 .2009 ELECTRONICALLY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.75,69,646/-. THE AO H AS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 29.12.2011 AND DETERMINED TAXAB LE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, M/S.H.L. EQUIPMENTS IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 200 9-10 AT RS.6,36,45,140/-. THE LD.AO HAS MADE TWO MAJOR ADD ITIONS; (A) HE REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED GP AT RS.3 ,26,12,166/-, (B) HE WORKED OUT STOCK DIFFERENCE HAVING VALUE OF RS.5 ,40,04,722/-. HE TREATED IT AS AN INVESTMENT FOR MAKING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. IN HIS OPINION, ESTIMATED GP COMPUTED IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURCHASING UNACCOUNTED MATERIAL, AND THEREFORE, HE CALCULATED UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AT RS.2,13,92,556/ - I.E. (RS.5,40,04,722/- MINUS RS.3,26,12,166/-) . THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH PARA-2 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS NO TIME TO VERIFY THE DETAILS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HIMSELF ADMITTED THIS ASPECT WHILE MA KING ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES IN PARA-10. 6. DISSATISFIED WITH THIS ORDER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE LD.CIT (A), THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED A SINGLE EVIDENCE SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR EXPLANATION GIVEN BY IT. HE POINTED OU T THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS RUNNING INTO 40 PAGE. IN THE FIRST 5 PAGES THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, AND IN THE N EXT 12 PAGES, REPRODUCED CONCLUSIONS OF THE AO. THEREAFTER, HE RE PRODUCED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE UPTO PAGE NO.38. HIS FINDING IS RUNNING INTO ONE-AND-HALF PAGES THAT IS WITHOUT MAK ING ANY REFERENCE TO ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 6 ANY CONTENTIONS OR ANY DETAILS. HE SIMPLY CONCURRE D WITH THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT(A) IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC DIR ECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL APPRAISING THE LD.CIT(A) AS TO HOW SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES FOR PASSING OF THE SPEAKING ORDER, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER ANY ASPECT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNS EL, ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON THIS PRELIMINARY IS SUE ITSELF. 7. THE LD.CIT-DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS UNABLE CON TROVERT THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WITHOUT REBUT TING TO THE ABOVE, HE FILED A SMALL NOTE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AO H AS GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREAFTER MADE OBSERVATIONS EXHIBITING NON-AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT TIME FOR CROSS-VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD. BEFORE MAKING UPON INQUIRY OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE WOULD LIKE TO APPRAISE OURSELVES WITH THE JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ROADMASTER INDUSTRIES OF INDIA P.LTD. VS. INSPECTING ACIT(ASSE SSMENT), 303 ITR 138 (P&H). THE HONBLE COURT HAS EXPOUNDED REQUIRE MENT OF PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH HAS ANALYSED ALL DETAILS AND A S TO WHY SUCH ORDERS SHOULD BE PASSED BY QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. TH E HONBLE COURT HAS MADE REFERENCE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS HIGH COURT WHEREIN EMPHASIS HAS BE EN GIVEN AS TO WHY QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES SHOULD GIVE REASON IN SU PPORT OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS. IN ORDER TO EMPHASIS OUR POINT OF VIE W AND WHICH HAD MADE US HANDICAP TO ADJUDICATE THIS APPEAL, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS JUDGMENT WHICH WOULD ENLIGHTEN TH E AO AS TO WHY HE HAS TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE ANALYTICALLY AND PROVI DE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE JUDGMENT READS AS UND ER: ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 7 4. ON A PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER, EVEN THE COUNSE L FOR THE REVENUE COULD NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH COULD STAND IN JUDICIAL SCRUTINY. AS TO WHETHER IN EXERCISE OF QUA SI-JUDICIAL POWERS, THE AUTHORITIES ARE REQUIRED TO PASS ORDERS BY GIVING REASONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF IS WELL SETTLED BY A SER IES OF JUDGMENTS BY HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. 5. IN HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. V. SHYAM SUNDER JH UNJHUNWALA AND ORS. , WHILE DEALING WITH AN ORDER PASSED BY TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE POWERS UNDE R SECTION 111(3)OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, IN THE MATTER OF REFUSAL OF A COMPANY TO REGISTER THE TRANSFER OF SHARES, HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED: IF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACTS AS A TRIBUNAL EXERCI SING QUASI- JUDICIAL POWERS AND THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER IS S UBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE FAIL TO SEE HOW THE POWER OF THIS COURT CAN BE EFFE CTIVELY EXERCISED, IF REASONS ARE NOT GIVEN BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS ORDER. 6. ANOTHER CONSTITUTION BENCH OF HON'BLE THE SUPREM E COURT IN BHAGAT RAJA V. UNION OF INDIACONSIDERED THE QUES TION WHETHER, WHILE EXERCISING REVISIONAL POWER UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 R/W RULES 54 AND 56 OF THE MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960, TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS DECISION AND HELD: THE DECISIONS OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA ARE SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISORY POWERS OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF APPELLATE POWERS OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT BOTH THE HIGH COURT AND THIS CO URT ARE PLACED UNDER A GREAT DISADVANTAGE IF NO REASONS ARE GIVEN AND THE REVISION IS DISMISSED CURTLY BY THE USE OF THE SING LE WORD 'REJECTED', OR 'DISMISSED'. IN SUCH A CASE, THIS CO URT CAN PROBABLY ONLY EXERCISE ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION SATISFACTO RILY BY EXAMINING THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE CASE AND AFTER GIVING A H EARING COME TO ITS CONCLUSION ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. THIS WI LL CERTAINLY BE A VERY UNSATISFACTORY METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE APPE AL. 7. IN TRAVANCORE RAYON LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA , HON 'BLE THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED: ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 8 THE COURT INSISTS UPON DISCLOSURE OF REASONS IN SUP PORT OF THE ORDER ON TWO GROUNDS : ONE, THAT THE PARTY AGGRIEVE D IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR THIS COURT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REASONS WHICH P ERSUADED THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT HIS CASE WERE ERRONEOUS; THE OT HER, THAT THE OBLIGATION TO RECORD REASONS OPERATES AS A DETERREN T AGAINST POSSIBLE ARBITRARY ACTION BY THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORIT Y INVESTED WITH THE JUDICIAL POWER. 8. IN MAHABIR PRASAD SANTOSH KUMAR V. STATE OF UP , HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT WHILE QUASHING THE CANCELLATION OF TH E PETITIONER'S LICENCE BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OBSERVED: RECORDING OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A DECISION ON A DISPUTED CLAIM BY A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ENSURES THAT THE DECI SION IS REACHED ACCORDING TO LAW AND IS NOT THE RESULT OF CAPRICE, WHIM OR FANCY OR REACHED ON GROUNDS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY. A PARTY TO THE DISPUTE IS ORDINARILY ENTITLED TO KNOW THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE AUTHORITY HAS REJECTED HIS CLAIM. IF THE ORDER IS S UBJECT TO APPEAL, THE NECESSITY TO RECORD REASONS IS GREATER, FOR WIT HOUT RECORDED REASONS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NO MATERIAL ON WHICH IT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THE FACTS WERE PROPERLY ASCERTAIN ED, THE RELEVANT LAW WAS CORRECTLY APPLIED AND THE DECISION WAS JUST. 9. IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. V. WOOLCOMBERS WORK ERS UNION , HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT S UPPORTED BY REASONS AND OBSERVED: THE GIVING OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONCLUSIO NS BY JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES WHEN EXERCISING INIT IAL JURISDICTION IS ESSENTIAL FOR VARIOUS REASONS. FIRST, IT IS CALCULA TED TO PREVENT UNCONSCIOUS, UNFAIRNESS OR ARBITRARINESS IN REACHIN G THE CONCLUSIONS. THE VERY SEARCH FOR REASONS WILL PUT T HE AUTHORITY ON THE ALERT AND MINIMISE THE CHANCES OF UNCONSCIOUS I NFILTRATION OF PERSONAL BIAS OR UNFAIRNESS IN THE CONCLUSION. THE AUTHORITY WILL ADDUCE REASONS WHICH WILL BE REGARDED AS FAIR AND L EGITIMATE BY A REASONABLE MAN AND WILL DISCARD IRRELEVANT OR EXTRA NEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. SECOND, IT IS A WELL-KNOWN PRINCIPL E THAT JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT SHOULD ALSO APPEAR TO B E DONE. UNREASONED CONCLUSIONS MAY BE JUST BUT THEY MAY NOT APPEAR TO BE JUST TO THOSE WHO READ THEM. REASONED CONCLUSION S, ON THE OTHER HAND, WILL HAVE ALSO THE APPEARANCE OF JUSTIC E. THIRD, IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT AN APPEAL GENERALLY LIES FROM THE 'DECISION OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIE S TO THIS COURT BY ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 9 SPECIAL LEAVE GRANTED UNDERARTICLE 136. A JUDGMENT WHICH DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE REASONS WILL BE OF LITTLE ASSISTAN CE TO THE COURT. 10. THE SAME VIEW WAS REITERATED IN AJANTHA INDUSTR IES AND ORS. V. CBDT AND ORS. AND SIEMENS ENGINEERING & MANUFACT URING CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. . 11. IN S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA , A CONSTIT UTION BENCH REVIEWED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE SUBJECT AND OBSERVED: THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE INDIC ATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASONS THE APP ROACH OF THIS COURT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT OF THE AMERICAN COU RTS. AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS WEIGHED WITH THE COURT FOR HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS MUST RECORD THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, IS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION O F THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS TH E SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER ARTICLE 227 O F THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE REASONS, IF RECORDED, WOU LD ENABLE THIS COURT AND THE HIGH COURT TO EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE TH E APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY POWER. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SOLE CONSIDE RATION. THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH T HE COURT IN TAKING THIS VIEW ARE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORD ING REASONS WOULD (I) GUARANTEE CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY; (II) INTRODUCE CLARITY IN THE DECISIONS; AND (III) MINIMISE CHANCE S OF ARBITRARINESS IN DECISION-MAKING. IN THIS REGARD, A DISTINCTION H AS BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN ORDINARY COURTS OF LAW AND TRIBUNALS AND AU THORITIES EXERCISING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT A JUDGE IS TRAINED TO LOOK AT THINGS OBJECTIVELY UNINFLUENCED BY CONSI DERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY WHEREAS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER G ENERALLY LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND POINT OF POLICY AND EXPEDI ENCY. REASONS, WHEN RECORDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IN AN ORDER PASSED BY IT WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, WO ULD NO DOUBT FACILITATE THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION BY THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY. BUT THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS , REFERRED TO ABOVE, WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THIS COURT IN H OLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY MUST RECORD REASONS FOR IT S DECISIONS ARE OF NO LESS SIGNIFICANCE. THESE CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT THE RECORDING OF REASONS BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY SERVES A SALUTARY PURPOSE, NAMELY, IT EXCLUDES CHANCES OF AR BITRARINESS AND ENSURES A DEGREE OF FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS OF DECI SIONS-MAKING. THE SAID PURPOSE WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL DECISIO NS AND ITS APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO DECISIONS WHICH A RE SUBJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN OUR OPINION , THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 10 REQUIREMENT THAT REASONS BE RECORDED SHOULD GOVERN THE DECISIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUD ICIAL FUNCTIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE DECISION IS SU BJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE AD DED THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE AS ELABORAT E AS IN THE DECISION OF A COURT OF LAW. THE EXTENT AND NATURE O F THE REASONS WOULD DEPEND ON PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THE REASONS ARE CLEAR AND EXPLICI T SO AS TO INDICATE THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN DUE CONSIDERA TION TO THE POINTS IN CONTROVERSY. THE NEED FOR RECORDING OF RE ASONS IS GREATER IN A CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS PASSED AT THE ORIGINAL STAGE. THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, IF IT AFFIRMS SU CH AN ORDER, NEED NOT GIVE SEPARATE REASONS IF THE APPELLATE OR REVIS IONAL AUTHORITY AGREES WITH THE REASONS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER UNDE R CHALLENGE. 12. IN TESTEELS LTD. V. N.M. DESAI, CONCILIATION OF FICER AND ANR. , A FULL BENCH OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT SPEAKING THROUGH P .N. BHAGWATI, J. (AS HIS LORDSHIP THEN WAS) MADE A LUCID ENUNCIAT ION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS FLOWS AS A NECESSAR Y COROLLARY FROM THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE B ASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SET UP. THE ADMINISTRA TIVE AUTHORITIES HAVING A DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY CANNOT THEREFORE DE CIDE ON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY. THEY MUST D ECIDE THE MATTER SOLELY ON THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, SOLELY ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE THEM AND APART FROM ANY EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS BY APPLYING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL NORMS TO FACTUAL SITUATIONS. NOW THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE DUTY TO ACT J UDICIALLY. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTR ANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND EXCLUDES OR, AT ANY R ATE, MINIMISES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. ANOTHER REASON WHICH COMPELS MAKING OF SUCH AN ORDE R IS BASED ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH IS POSSESSED BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THESE C OURTS HAVE THE POWER UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS TO QUASH BY CERTIOR ARI A QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AN D THIS POWER OF REVIEW CAN BE EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED ONLY IF THE ORD ER IS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER, THE SAID COURTS CANNOT EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE O RDER UNDER REVIEW. THE HIGH COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO INTERFERE SO AS TO KEEP THE ADMINISTRA TIVE OFFICER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW. THE RESULT WOULD BE T HAT THE POWER OF ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 11 JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE STULTIFIED AND NO REDRESS BEING AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZEN, THERE WOULD BE INSIDIOUS ENCOURAGEM ENT TO ARBITRARINESS AND CAPRICE. IF THIS REQUIREMENT IS I NSISTED UPON, THEN THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND CORRECTION. 13. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND APPLYING THE SAME IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE CIT DOES NOT SATISFY THE PREREQUISITES OF A SPEAKING ORDER, AS THE SAME DOES NOT CONTAIN REASONS TO SUPPORT THE ORDER. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND WHY WE HAVE BEEN PERSUADED TO REMIT THE IS SUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATI ON. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT DATED 29.12.2011 WOULD INDICATE THAT CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 25.8.2010. THEREAFTER, PROCEEDINGS REMAINED DORMANT. THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED O N 9.11.2011 FIXING THE HEARING ON 22.11.2011. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE FOR 10 DAYS. THE CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEAR ING ON 29.11.2011. A PERUSAL OF WRITTEN NOTE BY THE LD.CIT-DR WOULD INDI CATE THAT AFTER 29.11.2011 THE LD.AO HAS FIXED HEARING WEEKLY AND H E CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH. AT THIS STAGE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE B Y THE AO IN PARA 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. [10] IN THIS CASE, A SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A WAS C ONDUCTED ON 29/09/2008. DURING THE SURVEY , STOCK INVENTORY AS PER BOOKS WAS SUBMITTED TO SURVEY PARTY. AS PER THIS VALUE OF STO CK AS ON 29/09/2008 IS RS. 7,21,28,646/- (COPY ENCLOSED -ANN EXURE-A, PAGE NO. 1 TO 87). THE PHYSICAL STOCK OF INVENTORY WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE SURVEY PARTY AS PER WHICH VALUE OF STOCK IS RS. 7,22,45,395/- (COPY ENCLOSED -ANNEXURE - B, PAGE-1 TO 36). DETAILS REGARDING WORKING OF OPENING STOCK, CLOSING STOCK AND STOCK AS ON DATE OF SURVEY WAS CALLED FOR VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 09/11/2011, 30/11/2011 AND 16/12/2011. THE SA ME IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26/12/2011 VIDE SUBMIS SION DATED 19/12/2011. ON PERUSAL OF WORKING OF STOCK STATEMEN T, THE VALUE ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 12 OF STOCK AS ON 29/09/2008 HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS . 12,61,33,368/- (COPY ENCLOSED - ANNEXURE-C, PAGE NO . 1 TO 82), ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 5,40,04722/ -. AS THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT THE SAID DETAILS ONLY ON 26/12/2011 , IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REC ONCILE THE FIGURE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE, I AM CONSTRAINED AND DO NOT HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ADD THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 5, 40,04,722/- (RS. 12,61,33,368 - RS. 7,21,28,646/-) BEING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. IT IS NOTED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 3,26,12,166/- IS M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT AS DISCUSSED IN FORGO ING PARAS. IT IS PRESUMED THAT SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT IS DIVERTED TO UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE WHICH ARE REFLECTED IN THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T HE UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF RS. 5,40,04,722/- AND ESTIMATE D GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 3,26,12,166/-, WHICH COMES TO RS. 2,1 3,92,556/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. A PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(L)(C) IS SEPARATELY I NITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS MENTIONED THAT BOTH THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 10. THE LD.AO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT FOR WANT OF TIM E IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CROSS-VERIFY THE DETAILS. IF IT WAS NO T POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO CROSS-VERIFY THE DETAILS, THEN WHY HE HAD MADE ADDI TION AND CHARGED AN ENTITY WITH TAX LIABILITY. HE HIMSELF COMMITTED MI STAKE BY NOT STARTING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WELL IN TIME AND THEN PUNISH THE ASSESSEE. 11. DISSATISFIED WITH THIS TYPE OF REASONING, THE A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IT FILED AP PLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THIS APPLICATI ON THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM JOB WORK PARTIES IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE POSITION OF STOCK. ON THE ONE HAND, THE AO HAS EXP RESSED HIS HANDICAP OF CROSS-VERIFYING THE DETAILS OF STOCK, ON THE OTH ER HAND, WHEN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FOR BUTTRESSING ITS CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT TAKE THIS EVIDENCE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-RULE 1 OF RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WOULD IN DICATE THAT IT ENVISAGE A RIGHT IN AN APPELLANT TO SUBMIT ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IN CASE ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 13 WHERE HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONS FROM P RODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE AO. SIMILARLY, CLAUSE (C) FURTHER CONTEMPLATES THAT IF HE WAS PREV ENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING AN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO, WHI CH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL, THEN SUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THIS AS PECT. THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY THE TIME GAP GIVEN BY THE AO FOR S UBMITTING DETAILS. HE STARTED INVESTIGATING IN FAG END OF MONTH OF NOV EMBER, AND TIME LIMIT TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS END OF DECEMBER. THERE WAS ONLY ONE MONTHS TIME. IT MAY BE QUITE DIFFICULT FOR TH E ASSESSEE TO COLLECT ALL THE DETAILS ASKED FOR BY THE AO IN SHORT SPAN O F TIME. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT BEFORE DECLINI NG THE PRAYER. THE LD.CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO DEAL WITH THIS ASPECT SPECI FICALLY. IT HAS BEEN INFERRED FROM THE ORDER THAT THIS PRAYER WAS IMPLIE DLY DECLINED. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS RUNNING INTO 40 PAGES. T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CON CLUSIONS OF THE AO IN FIRST 36 PAGES. THEREAFTER, ON PAGE NO.37, THE LD.CIT(A) BRIEFLY NOTED THE FACTS AND ON PAGE NO.39 RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAS GON E THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN R EJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ESTIMATION OF THE GROSS P ROFIT. THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NOT BE EN REBUTTED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT WITH COGENT EVIDENCE/EXPLAN ATION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT B EING THE AVERAGE OF THREE YEARS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE HENCE THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.3,2 6,12,166/- IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT A RE DISMISSED. ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 14 12. THIS FINDING CANNOT BE TERMED AS A SPEAKING ORD ER BY ANY STANDARD. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD INDICATE THAT NOT A SINGLE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DE ALT WITH. BOTH ORDERS ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROPOSITION EXPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT EXPECTING OF PASSING OF A SPEA KING ORDER FROM A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE EARLIER SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE CIT(A) AND IT GA VE LOT OF HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CROSS-VERIF ICATION WITH REGARD TO THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN FROM THE JOB WORKERS OFFERED BY THE AO OR BY THE CIT(A) IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO RE CORD ANY FINDING OF THE FACT. THE AO HAS MADE MAJOR ADDITIONS WITHOUT VERI FYING THE DETAILS. THIS ASPECT WOULD TAKE US NOWHERE. IN SUCH SITUATI ON, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET A SIDE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A) (EXCEPT IN ITA NO.1250/AHD/2013) AND T HAT OF AOS IN ALL THE APPEAL, BECAUSE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND RESTOR E THESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THE LD.AO SHAL L COMMENCE HEARING WELL IN TIME AND PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES T O THE ASSESSEE. WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER, AO SHALL KEEP IN MIND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT EXTRACTED (SU PRA) AND RECORD REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES IN TH APPEALS OF ALL THE ASSESSEES ARE SIMILAR, THEREFORE , IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SE EXCEPT ITA NO.1250/AHD/2013. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO1250/AHD/2013. 14. THIS IS THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND I.E. DATED 22.2.2013 P ASSED IN ASSTT.YEAR 2010. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD .CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 15 ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.20,70,770/- UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW T AX EFFECT. HE MADE REFERENCE TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR BEARING NO.21/2015. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR CONTENDED THAT THIS APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT BECAUSE ON ACCOUNT OF CER TAIN ADDITIONS, QUANTIFICATION OF DEDUCTION MAY FLUCTUATE. HE FUR THER CONTENDED THAT DEPARTMENT HAS FILED A DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND HE RELIED UPON THESE STATEMENT OF FACTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT, OTHERWISE ALSO ON MERIT TH E ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY O F THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 26.8.2014 PASSED IN TAX APPEAL NO.891 AND 892 OF 2014. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY MANUFACTURING WORK. THE MANUFACTURING WORK WAS DON E BY THE SISTER CONCERN. THESE REASONS HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED IN PAR A-13 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND THEY READ AS UNDER: 13. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT; I) THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E SPIRIT OF CHAPTER VI-A, AS INTERPRETED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF TEXTILE MACHINERY CORP. LTD. V/S. CIT (1977) 107 IT R 195 (SC) AND THAT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V/S. HINDUSTAN GENERAL INDS. LTD. J) THE ACTUAL MANUFACTURING WORK DONE BY H.L.E. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND NOT BY ASSESSEE FIRM. ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 16 K) THE ASSESSEE IS OBTAINING VESSELS AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS IN READY TO FIT CONDITIONS AND JUST RIVETING, NUT BOLT ING AND WELDING THEM WHERE EVER REQUIRED. L) THE ACTIVITY PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CHANGE THE IDENTITY OR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORIGINAL COMMODI TY, SINCE; ONLY SIMPLE ASSEMBLING IS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. M) THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MANUFAC TURING IN VIEW OF THE TESTS FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT O F INDIA, IN THE CASES OF PIO FOOD PACKERS (1980) 46 STC 63, N.C . BUDHARAJA & CO. (1993) 204 ITR 412 AND J.G. GLASS IND. LTD. ( 1998) AIR 1998 SC 839. N) ASSESSEE'S CASE CAN BE COMPARED WITH THAT O F CIT VS. BABCOCK AND WILCOX (1999) 158 CTR 352 (CAT.) O) THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESENTED WRONG FACTS OF I TS CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITY DONE BY IT AND WITH RESPECT TO THE SKILL REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT THAT PROCESS, IN ORDER TO MIS LEAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT IT CAN ENJOY THE UNDUE BE NEFITS OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. P) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY BENEFI TS OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB, AS HAS BEEN HELD IN VERY SIMILAR CASES BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, SINCE, THE ACTIVITY OF ASSEMBLING PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT MANUFA CTURING. AS STATED ABOVE, AND AFTER DISCUSSION THE ISS UE AT LENGTH, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM U/S. 80IB O F THE ACT. 15. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRANTED DEDUCTION ON THE GROU ND THAT IN ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED DEDUC TION TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 17.3.2011. WE FIND THAT THE DEDUCTION IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2008-09 AND 2006-07 WERE UPHELD TO THE LEVEL OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS TO IN TERFERE IN THE ORDER ITA NO.2952/AHD/2015 & 10 OTHERS H.L. EQUIPMENTS AND OTHERS VS. JCIT , SURAT 17 OF THE LD.CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTE D AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE EXCEPT ITA NO.1250/AHD/2013 WHICH IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/04/2017