Ther ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi V. M/s. Amoli Organics Pvt.Ltd., Vapi

ITA 1975/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 197520514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARA T, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI (APPELLANT) VS. AMOLI ORGANICS PVT.LTD. PLOT NO. 322/4, GIDC, VAPI (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AACCA399OQ REVENUE BY : SRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI S.N.SOPARKAR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 01-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-11-2012 / ORDER PER : KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD DATED 29-06-2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. I.T.A. NO 1975 /AHD/2012 A.Y.:-2007-08 ITA NO. 1975/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO. THE ACIT VS. AMOLI ORGANICS PVT.LTD. 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY A .O. ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 35(2AB) OF THE ACT AMOUNT ING TO RS. 1,48,12,204/-. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTOR ED. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAME D WHEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WE IGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE AGGRIEV ED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFT ER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS REVISED HIS CLAIM. 4.1 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SRI S. N. SOPARKAR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWE D THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE CERTIFICATE AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT IN ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE IN PRESCRIBED FORMAT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGIN AL CERTIFICATE WAS ITA NO. 1975/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO. THE ACIT VS. AMOLI ORGANICS PVT.LTD. 3 MISPLACED A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME DULY CERTIFI ED BY THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT WAS FURNISHED. HE SUBMITTED THAT NON-FU RNISHING OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE WOULD NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR C LAIMING THE WEIGHTED DEDUCTION OTHERWISE ENTITLED. HE SUBMITTED IN EARL IER YEARS CERTIFICATE WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, TH ERE WAS NO BASIS FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CERT IFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 28 TH APRIL, 2007 AND THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILI TY WAS APPROVED W.E.F ON 1 ST APRIL, 2006 TO 31TH MARCH, 2009, THEREFORE, THE AS SESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION FOR THE PERIOD AS APPROV ED IN THE FORM NO. 3CM OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CERTIFICATE AS ENCLOSED B Y THE ASSESSEE ISSUED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 3CM APPROVED BY THE RESEARCH AND D EVELOPMENT FACILITY W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 2006 TO 31 MARCH, 2009. THE ONLY GROUND FO R REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) IS T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, IT IS N OT DISPUTED THAT A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE SAME WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CE RTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, THE ACTION THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WEIGHED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS GROUND O F THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NO. 1975/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO. THE ACIT VS. AMOLI ORGANICS PVT.LTD. 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 09/11/2012 A.K. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '#