Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4636 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
22-06-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
30-03-2016
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
18-02-2013
Judgement Text
ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL ME MBER I.T.A NO. 333/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 I.T.O WARD 35(1), KOLKATA VS. M/S. PLASTIC MOU LDERS INTERNATIONAL PAN:AAJFP 9485H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT : SHRI RAJAT KR KURE EL, JCIT, LD. SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: SHRI MANISH TIWA RI, FCA, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 30-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22-06-201 6 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT-A-XX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 233/CIT(A)-XX/WD-35(1)/11-12/KOL DATED 2 0-11-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE APPELLANT REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER(AO), BY NOT SERVING ANY HEARING NOTICE AND NOT SENDING THE FORM NO 35, GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, PAPER-BOOK TO THE AO. (2) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING FRESH DOC UMENTS AT THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FORM OF A LEASE DEED DATED 20/08 /2007 AS MENTIONED IN PAGE - 2, PARA 4(1)(I) OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AND NOT SENDING I T FOR REMAND REPORT OF THE A O. ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 2 (3) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING FRESH DOC UMENTS AT THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FORM OF A COMPETENT AUTHORITY'S CERTIFICATE DATED 22/08/2008 AS MENTIONED IN PAGE - 4, PARA 5(1)(II) OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RU LES, 1962. (4) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DATES OF CERTIFICATES IN THE TABLE SU BMITTED AS MENTIONED IN PAGE - 2, PARA 4(1)(II) OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDE R EXCEPT THE DATE OF LICENSE OF LAND DATED 03/08/2007, WHEN THE DATE OF FACTORY LICENSE IS 03/01/2009, THE DATE OF CERTIFICATE OF STABILITY BY THE COMPETENT PERSON IS 12/01/2009 WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE STARTE D FULL-FLEDGED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION ON 04/07/2008. (5) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, E VEN IF, THE COMPLETION OF CIVIL WORK ON 20/06/2008, AS APPEARS IN A NEW DOCUM ENT CANNOT CERTIFY THAT THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION WAS STARTED WITHIN TWO WE EKS I. E. 4TH JULY, 2008 AS A LOT OF WORK ARE NEEDED INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF MACHINERIES, ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS, TEST RUN OF MACHINERIES ( PAGE 2 PARA 4- L(II), LINE 1,2 &3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER) AND A LOT MORE BEFORE THE HUGE CO MMERCIAL PRODUCTION IS STARTED. (6) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E MONTHLY PRODUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE STATED ITS ALMOST PEAK FROM THE VERY FIRST MONTH THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INSTALLED H EAVY MACHINERIES IN THE END MONTHS OF THE F Y 2008-09 AS MENTIONED IN PAGE - 2, PARA - 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BY TH E AO AS NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED ON REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES. (7) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT G P RATE OF 36% AND NET PROFIT RATE OF 22% ARE ABNORMALLY HIGH IN THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS WHEN THE DEPRECIATION IS VERY HIGH AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING AND T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT GET AWAY BY NOT PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AT ANY STAGE. (8) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE IN A NEW ONE AND IT IS TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE HON'BLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 3 (9) HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) BE CANCELLED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) BE UPHELD. (10) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AB ROGATE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. GROUND NOS 1 TO 8 RAISED AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT-A FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES FOR SHORT HEREINAFTER AS RULES , AND FOR NOT APPRECIATING HOW THE ASSESSEE ACHIEVED THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT W ITHOUT THERE BEING VALID PERMISSIONS AND FOR NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT HOW THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/SEC 80IE WITHOUT THERE BEING REVISED RETURN AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT 284 ITR 323(SC) , THUS, WITH CONSENT OF PARTIES, ALL GROUNDS 1 TO 9 READ AND HEARD TOGETHER AS ONE ISSUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANSWERING THE SAME AS ONE ISSUE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A FIRM AND IS A MANUFACTURER OF PLASTIC ITEMS. THE ASESSEE FILED ITS E-RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.38,61,635/-. AS IT WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY NOT ICES U/SECS 143(2) DT:23-08-10 AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED. 5. DURING SUCH PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDING TO AO THAT TH E ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT FOR MANY TIMES FOR HEARING SINCE 22-09-11 BEING THE DAT E OF FIRST HEARING AND ON MANY SUCH REFIXATIONS, THE AR REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE APPEA RED AND FILED COPY OF TAX AUDITED REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT LOSS ACCOUNT ETC.. WITHOUT FORM NO-10CCB ON 25-08-2011 AND THEREAFTER NONE APPEARED. UNDER QUESTION NO- 4 STATED TO HAVE FRAMED U/SEC 142(1) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE AO SOUGHT EXPLANATION REGAR DING THE ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATION TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/SEC 80IC DOUBTING, HOW THE ASS ESSEE COULD ACHIEVE PRODUCTION WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY VALID PERMISSIONS AS IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED FACTORY LICENSE ON 03-01-09 AN D STABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AN ENGINEER ON 12-01-09. ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 4 6. THE ANOTHER QUESTION RAISED BY THE AO REGARDING SUBMISSION OF TRADE LICENSE, SALES TAX REGISTRATION, REGISTRATION AND POLLUTION CONTRO L, APPROVAL OF DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, PAYMENT RECEIPTS OF ELECTRICITY , INS URANCE. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ONLY A COPY OF POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ASSAM TO WHICH THE AO NOTICED DATE OF SUCH CERTIFICATE IS NOT LEGIBLE. 7. THE OTHER INFORMATION SOUGHT BY AO TO PROD UCE THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THE PURCHASE OF MACHINERY WITH BANK STATEMENT INDICATING SUCH PU RCHASE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A BILL DATED 27-10-2008, INDICATING A VALUE OF RS.10,23,00 0/- OF A PLASTIC MOLDED MACHINE AND ANOTHER BILL SHOWING THE INWARD FREIGHT DATED 9-2-2 009 OF INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE AND THE INSTALLATION CHARGES CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID ON 15 -2-2009. LIKEWISE ONE PLASTIC GRANULAR WITH 25HP MOTOR VIDE CHALLAN NO-48 DATED 13-10-2008 . 8. FROM THE ABOVE IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY HIM ON MANY OCCASIONS AND HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT HOW ASSESSEE MANAGED TO ACHIEVE PRODUCTION AT 36%, THER EON NET PROFIT AT 22% WITHOUT THERE BEING VALID LICENSES, PERMISSIONS, FORM NO.10CCB AN D PROPER INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY, THEREBY DOUBTING THE TAX AUDITING REPORT DENIED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.38,61,365/- U/SEC 80IC AND ADDED SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE . 9. IN FIRST APPEAL THE CIT-A ALLOWED THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17-11-2011 PASSED BY THE AO OBSERVING THAT THE AO DID NOT BRING ON ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL AGAINST THE UNIFORM S ALES AND HIGH RATE OF PROFIT AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE CL AIM U/SEC 80 IE OF THE ACT, THE RELEVANT OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME W AS FILED ELECTRONICALLY. THEY FURNISHED COPY OF AUDITOR'S REPORT ALONGWITH F ORM NO.10CCB BEFORE THE A.O. ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. ON1Y BOOKS OF ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 5 ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS THE SAME WERE LYI NG ILL THE FACTORY UNIT AT ASSAM. THE FACTS/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THE I NDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS SET UP IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (ASSAM). THE S ECTION 80IE WAS INSERTED IN F.Y. 2007-08 W.E.F, FROM 01.04.2008. THE PARTNER S OF THE FIRM ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KOLKATA. DATE OF STARTING OF CIVIL WORK OF THE UNIT WAS 16.07.2007 AND DATE OF COMPLETION WAS 20.06.2008. D ATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION MENTIONED IN THE ELIGIBILI TY CERTIFICATION FOR NEW UNIT IN FORM -IIA IS 04.07.2008. DATE OF NO OBJECTI ON CERTIFICATE BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ASSAM IS 18.06.2008. THE MISTAKE MEN TIONING THE SECTION 80IC INSTEAD OF 80IE WAS INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND TH E SAME WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A.O. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. -VS- CIT, 284 ITR 323(SC) IS DISTINGUISHABLE AS THE FACTS IN BOTH THE CASES ARE DIFFERENT. SO FAR UNIFORM SALES AND HIGH RATE OF PROFIT IS CONCER NED, NO FURTHER ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O TO SUPPOR T HIS VIEW IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE, THE AO IS DI RECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM U/S.80IE OF THE I.T. ACT. 10. HAVING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF CIT-A BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS HEREIN ABOVE MENTIONED. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT-A ACCEPTED AND ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FIRST APPEAL THEREBY VIOLATED RULE 46A AND THE CIT- A ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE NON FILING OF FORM NO.10 CCB WHICH IS MANDATED TO CLAIM DEDUCT ION U/SEC 80IE OF THE ACT FOR WHICH THE REVENUE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THIS IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE COPIES OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL/PETITION, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HEARING NOTICE WERE NOT SENT TO THE AO AND ALSO NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO COPY OF H EARING NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH IT IS WRITTEN IN THE A PPEAL ORDER THAT PRESENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT 'NONE.' THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT THE COMPLETION OF CIVIL WORK ON 20/06/2008 AS APPEARS IN A NEW DOCUME NT CANNOT CERTIFY THAT THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION WAS STARTED WITHIN TWO WEEKS I. E. 4TH JULY, 2008. THERE ARE A LOT OF WORK ARE NEEDED INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF MACHINERIES, ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS, TEST RUN OF MACHINERIES ( PAGE 2 PARA 4- L(II), LINE 1,2 &3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER) AND A LOT MORE BEFORE THE HUGE COMMER CIAL PRODUCTION IS STARTED. RATHER IT WOULD CERTIFY THAT THE COMMERCIAL FULL-FL EDGED PRODUCTION CANNOT BE STARTED IN 4TH JULY, 2008. IN PARA 4.1(II) F PAGE 2 OF THE APPEAL ORDER THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED. IT IS WRITTEN BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT AFTER OBTAINING ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 6 APPROVALS FROM DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES OF ASSAM, THE ASSESSEE STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING. BUT AS PER THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THE LAND LICENSE WAS ISSUED BY PANCHAYAT ON 03/08/2007 AND T HE LAND WAS REGISTERED ON 20/08/2007, (PAGE 2 PARA 4(1)(I) AND 4-1(II) OF THE APPEAL ORDER). SO HOW THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION CAN BE STARTED ON 16/07/2007 (PAGE 6, 1ST PARA OF THE APPEAL ORDER) AND WHEN AND FOR HOW LONG DURATION ALL THE APPROVAL S FROM DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES OF ASSAM HAS BEEN OBTAINED ( PAGE 2 PARA 4- L(II), LIN E 1,2 &3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER)? THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE TABLE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AND REPRODUCED ON ( PAGE 2 PARA 4-1(II), OF) THE AP PEAL ORDER, THE DATE OF LICENSE OF LAND IS GIVEN AS 03/08/2007 BUT THE DATES OF OTH ER CERTIFICATES ARE NOT GIVEN. THE DATE OF CERTIFICATE OF STABILITY IS 03/01/2009, THE DATE OF ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE IS 12/01/2009, THE DATE OF CERTIFICATE OF ENTITLEMENT IS 07/07/2010, NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE OF POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IS NOT LEGIB LE ETC. NO COPY OF THE PAPER BOOK WAS SENT TO THE A O. THE AO WAS NOT GIVEN AN O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE NEW DOCUMENTS SUBMI TTED. NO REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR. 11. IN REPLY THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT ALL T HE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO EXCEPT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE REASON THERETO FOR NON-SU BMISSION THAT WERE LYING IN THE FACTORY PREMISES AT GUWAHATI, ASSAM. THE LEARNED AR ALSO SU BMITTED THAT THE ASESSEE ACHIEVED GROSS PRODUCTION AND NET PROFIT THEREON AT 22% AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION. FURTHER HE PRODUCED ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR AY 2011 -12 AND 12-1 3 TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN LOSSES AND THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHERE THE REVENUE ACCEPTED THE LOSS OF RS. 10,90,295/- AND RS . 5,98,140/- RESPECTIVELY. 12. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF RULES AGITATING THAT THE C IT-A DID NOT GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY BY SENDING FORM NO-35 AND NOTICE OF HEARING TO AO, IN THIS REGARD, THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY O F LEASE DEED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT-A, BASING ON WHICH THE CIT-A HAS GIV EN RELIEF OF RS.38,61,365/- U/SEC 80IC WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE PARA-4(1)(I) OF APPELLATE ORDER REGARDING LEASE ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 7 DEED DT:20-08-07. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD . DR THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT APPEARS TO HAVE NOT ON RECORD BEFORE AO AS CAN BE S EEN FROM THE ORDER OF AO, WHERE HE DID NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO SAID LEASE DEED IN HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS PLACED ON RECOR D FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE CIT-A AND HE COULD HAVE SEND THE SAME FOR THE VERIFICATIO N OF THE AO SEEKING REPORT UNDER REMAND, WHERE IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES VIOLATION OF T HE RULE 46A OF RULES. 13. REGARDING FORM NO-10CCB, THE AO OBSERVED THAT T HE FORM NO-10CCB WAS NOT FILED BEFORE HIM AND AS THE SAME IS EVIDENT FRO M HIS ORDER AT PARA-11 AND WHERE AS THE CIT-A OBSERVED THAT ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO EXCEPT, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WE FIND THESE TWO FINDINGS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE RUNNING CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER. LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE FILING OF FORM NO-10CCB IS MANDATORY TO CLAIM DEDUC TION U/SEC 80IE, BUT, HOWEVER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE, THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUCH DEDUCTION ORIGINALLY U/SEC 80IC AND ON AN OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE S OUGHT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE BY WAY OF A LETTER FOR WHICH, THE AO KEEPING IN VIEW T HE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS CIT REPO RTED IN 284 ITR 323(SC) WHERE THE HONBLE COURT WAS PLEASES TO HOLD THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO ENTERTAIN A POINT OF LAW FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THE AO HAS NO POWER TO ENTERTAIN A FRESH CLAIM OTHERWISE THAN BY A REVISED RETURN. THE FACT REMAI NS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REVISED RETURN TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE AS C OMMITTED BY IT CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/SEC 80IC INSTEAD OF U/SEC 80IE, IN THIS REGARD, T HE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT-A WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO , EXCEPT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DIRECTION THEREON TO AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/SE C 80IE IS MISDIRECTED, BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION AND CONTRARY TO LAW. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD SUPRA ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE AS IN THAT C ASE NO CLAIM WAS FILED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT ASSESSE E SOUGHT TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION BY ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 8 FILING A SEPARATE LETTER TO THE AO, HOWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE FILED A CLAIM BUT UNDER THE WRONG PROVISION I.E 80IC IN PLA CE OF 80IE OF THE ACT. AS EXPLAINED EARLIER THAT THERE ARE CONTRADICTORY OBSE RVATIONS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS WITH REGARD TO THE FILING OF CERT IFICATE IN FORM NO-10CCB, WE, THEREFORE, ARE INCLINED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COOPERATE IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, AS INDICATED ABOVE IN PARA NO-3, ALL GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 14. GROUND NO- 10 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION, ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO- 10 IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-06-2016 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (S .S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/06 /2016 TALUKDAR (SR.PS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL, B-2-AB, B-3 -AB, RANI INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, DIST- KAMRUP, P.S. PALASHBARI, GUWAHATI, A SSAM- 711 108. 2 ITO, WARD-35(1), KOLKATA 3. THE CIT-I, 4. THE CIT(A)-I, 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO.333/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. PLASTIC MOULDERS INTERNATIONAL 9
