The ITO, Ward-7(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Mehul Visabhai Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 38/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94663 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIPAK SUTARIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMADABAD , BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2001-02, 2003-04 & 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), AHMEDABAD V/S . MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL C/O VINAYAK MARKETING MANIPRABHU COMPLEX, DARPAN SIX ROAD, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD - 380013 PAN NO. AAYPP7247C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) / BY REVENUE SHRI DIPAK SUTARIA, SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE NONE /DATE OF HEARING 19.10.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.10.2015 O R D E R PER : MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 25.10.2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 200 3-04 AND 2007-08 ON SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, DURING COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE EVEN WHEN THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED THROUGH DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD ON THE BASIS OF PAPERS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. D.R. 3. FIRST WE TAKE ITA NO. 37/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2001 -02, WHEREIN REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.17,29, 981/- U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, WHO IS P ROPRIETOR OF M/S. SUBH ELECTROMECH, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACT URING OF ELECTRONIC GOODS AND HOME APPLIANCES, SUCH AS MUSIC SYSTEMS, CAR STE REOS ETC., HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2001-02 ON 24.10.2001 SHOWING TO TAL INCOME AT RS.1,62,040/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AT RS.17,29,981/-. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED BY ASSESSING OFFICER (ITO, WARD 7(4), AHMEDABAD) U/ S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30 TH MARCH, 2004, WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AT RS.17,29,981/- AND DISALLOWED INTERES T CHARGED ON INTEREST FREE ADVANCES AT RS.1,03,072/- AND AS SUCH ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.19,95,090/-. THE MAIN REASON FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S.80IB OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT REQUIS ITE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE A CT. 4.1 AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A) WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.09.2004 ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT, THEREAFTER, REVENUE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 3 AND CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.3562/AHD/2004 DATED 17.10.2008 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: I. TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCT ION U/S.80IB OF THE IT ACT AFTER GIVING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. II. TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTER EST ON ADVANCES OF RS.1,03,070/- AFTER GIVING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.2 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH, ASSES SING OFFICER ISSUED A FRESH NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT ON 18.03.2009 SE EKING VARIOUS DETAILS AND EVIDENCES, FROM THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM U /S.80IB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS WHICH WERE CAL LED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT, FURNISHING A WRITTEN SUBMISSION AL ONG WITH COPIES OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND COPIES OF APPELLATE ORDERS. D UE TO LACK OF ANY INFORMATION AND ON THE BASIS OF RECORDS AVAILABLE, ASSESSING OF FICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS ONLY MA DE A WRITTEN SUBMISSION GIVING DETAILS OF MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND REFEREN CE TO THE REPORT BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ON FORM NO.10CCB OF IT RULES TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT FUR NISH ANY DETAILS IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, SALES BILLS, PROOF OF USE OF POWER FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND DETAILS OF WORKERS EMPLOYED. ON THE B ASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND WITH HIS ASSISTAN CE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS, WHE THER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 4 FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DEDU CTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED IN SUPPORT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM CERTAI N INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKING. SECTION 80IB(2)(IV) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: IN A CASE WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MANUFAC TURES OR PRODUCES ARTICLES OR THINGS, THE UNDERTAKING EMPLOYS TEN OR MORE WORKERS IN A MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON WITH THE AID OF POWER, OR EMPLOYS TWENTY OR MORE WORKERS IN A MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER. ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO EXAMINE BASICALLY THREE CRUCIAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF TH E ACT; (I) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, (II) WHETHER THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS IS CARRIED ON WITH THE AID ON POWER, (III) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS EMPLOYED 10 OR MORE WORKERS IN THE MANUFACTURING AC TIVITY IS CARRIED ON WITH THE AID OF POWER OR HAS EMPLOYED 20 OR MORE WORKER S IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER. ASSESSING OFF ICER IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.8 0IB CALLED FOR NECESSARY INFORMATION VIDE LETTER DATED 27.11.2009 ISSUED DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS PER THE DECISION OF CO-ORD INATE BENCH IN WHICH THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 1. LEDGER, JOURNAL, SALES & PURCHASE INVOICES AND EXPENSES VOUCHERS. 2. BANK PASS BOOK/STATEMENT, COUNTER PARTS OF CHEQU E BOOK & SLIP BOOK. 3. STOCK REGISTER, MFG. REGISTER AND PACKING MATERI AL REGISTER ALONGWITH GOODS INWARD-OUTWARD REGISTER. 4. POWER CONSUMPTION REGISTER ALONG-WITH INSTALLATI ON BILL VOUCHERS AND POWER BILLS FOR THE YEAR. 5. SALARY AND WAGES REGISTER, MUSTER ROLLS (PRESENC E REGISTER) ALONGWITH LIST OF ALL EMPLOYEES WITH DETAILED ADDRESSES. 6. CONTRA ACCOUNTS FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE CRE DITORS AND DEBTORS DULY SIGNED. 7. ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFOR E THE CIT(A) & HONBLE TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEALS. HOWEVER, NONE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION WERE SUBMITT ED FOR PERUSAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS TO PROCEED FURTHER AS PER THE RECORDS AVAILABLE ON FILE. ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 5 7.1 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON EXAMINATI ON OF TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT SIMILAR ITEMS ARE APPEARING UNDER THE RAW MATERIAL AS WELL AS FINISH GOODS QUAN TITATIVE DETAILS FOR THE YEAR. TAKING ONE EXAMPLE OF ITEM P.C.B. FOR HI-FI MUSIC S YSTEM WITH COMPONENTS. THIS ITEM WAS APPEARING IN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAIL MADE FOR RAW MATERIALS AND WAS SHOWING THAT QUANTITY RECEIVED DURING YEAR WAS 198 AND QUANTITY MANUFACTURED WAS 198 AND THE SAME ITEM WAS APPEARIN G IN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF FINISHED PRODUCTS SHOWING QUANTITY MANUF ACTURED 198 AND QUANTITY SOLD 198. FROM THIS OBSERVATION, DOUBT ARISEN IN T HE MIND OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ACTUALLY CARRYING ON A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OR NOT BECAUSE FOR TREATING AN ACTIVITY AS MANUFACTURING A CTIVITY, THE PROCESS SHOULD RESULT IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICLE O R THING INTO A NEW DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME, CHARAC TER AND USE AND THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SUPP ORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS CARRYING ON A MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY. 7.2 ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT MANUFACTURES ELECT RONIC GOODS. IN HIS SUBMISSION BEFORE LD. CIT(A), HE HAS MENTIONED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC GOODS, SUCH AS, MUSIC SYST EMS, RADIO CASSETTE RECORDERS, CAR STEREO SYSTEMS, VCD PLAYERS, MICROWA VE OVENS, VCRS AND AIR CONDITIONER MACHINES ETC. HE HAS IMPORTED THE REQUIRED RAW MATERIAL FROM VARIOUS COUNTRIES LIKE SINGAPORE, HONG KONG ETC. UN DER OPEN GENERAL IMPORT LICENSE SCHEME. RAW MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR MANUFAC TURING THE GOODS CONSTITUTE PLASTIC AND METAL PARTS CONTAINING MAIN PLASTIC BODY, FRONT PANEL AND BACK PANEL, SPEAKER BOX, MECHANICAL PARTS SUCH AS T .D.M., C.D.M., TRANSFORMERS, HEAT SING UNITS, VARIOUS TYPES OF SPE AKERS, REMOTE CONTROLS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOLDERING WIRES, A.C. CORD WIRES , BATTERIES ETC. THESE RAW MATERIAL ITEMS ARE ASSEMBLED AND FINISHED GOODS ARE MANUFACTURED. ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 6 7.3 BUT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS APPEARING IN THE A UDITED BALANCE SHEET AND TAX AUDIT REPORT ARE NOT HAVING ANY MENTION OF THE VARI OUS RAW MATERIALS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. RATHER ONLY THE END PRODUCT I.E. THE FINISHED GOODS IS APPEARING IN THE RAW MATERIAL LIST AS WELL AS FINISHED GOODS LIST. 7.4 ASSESSING OFFICER REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUP PLY THE COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS PURCHASED, SALE BILL S AND PROPER QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN WHICH RAW MATERIAL ACTUALLY PURCHASED FO R ASSEMBLE SHOULD APPEAR BUT NO SUCH INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER. DUE TO THIS REASON, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE OF CARRYING MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. 7.5 SAME WAS THE POSITION FOR EXAMINING OF USE OF POWER AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF WORKERS, WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFICER NE EDED THE PROOF OF POWER, CONNECTION, POWER CONSUMPTION, CERTIFICATE OF SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES, WAGES REGISTER AND PROOF OF THE PAYMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE. DUE TO ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OTHER O PTION EXCEPT TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM U/S.80IB OF THE IT ACT. 7.6 THEREAFTER, DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), NO MATERIAL DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED EXCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS IN REFERENCE TO THE AUDIT REPORT ON FORM NO.10CCB A ND LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS WHICH WERE CRUCIAL BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AP PRECIATED THAT SECTION 80IB CLAIM IS A DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE FROM THE TOTAL INCOME ONLY ON ADHERING ACCOMPLISHING OF REQUIREMENTS EMBEDDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB AND IF ANYONE OF THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT ADHERE D BY THE ASSESSEE THEN DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT IS TO BE DENIED. ON OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE NOT INTERESTED TO FIGHT FOR HIS CLAIM AS HE HAS NEITHER FULFILLED THE ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 7 REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR GAVE ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND NOR HE IS APPEARING BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL WITH REQUISITE DETAILS AND AS SUCH, WE FIND IT JUSTIFIED TO CONFIR M THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND THEREBY A LLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. NOW, WE TAKE ITA NO. 38/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2003-0 4. REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.26,07, 155/- U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED. IN THIS APPEAL ALSO, CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.10.2008 IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/2006 HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK T O THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING DIRECTIONS TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING PROPER AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIRECTION, FRESH NOTICE U/S.143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.03.2009 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON ON 19.03.2009. FURTHER, NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QU ESTIONNAIRE WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 27.11.2009. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ATTEND AL ONG WITH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN ORIGINAL VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 27.1 1.2009: 1. LEDGER, JOURNAL, SALES & PURCHASE INVOICES AND EXPENSES VOUCHERS. 2. BANK PASS BOOK/STATEMENT, COUNTER PARTS OF CHEQU E BOOK & SLIP BOOK. 3. STOCK REGISTER, MFG. REGISTER AND PACKING MATERI AL REGISTER ALONGWITH GOODS INWARD-OUTWARD REGISTER. 4. POWER CONSUMPTION REGISTER ALONG-WITH INSTALLATI ON BILL VOUCHERS AND POWER BILLS FOR THE YEAR. 5. SALARY AND WAGES REGISTER, MUSTER ROLLS (PRESENC E REGISTER) ALONGWITH LIST OF ALL EMPLOYEES WITH DETAILED ADDRESSES. 6. CONTRA ACCOUNTS FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE CRE DITORS AND DEBTORS DULY SIGNED. ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 8 7. ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFOR E THE CIT(A) & HONBLE TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEALS. IN THIS YEAR ALSO, ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVI DENCE TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT EVEN AFTER A FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN. WE HAVE DEALT THE SIMILAR GROUND ABOVE IN ITA NO.37 /AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2001- 02 AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNAB LE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, WE FIND IT JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED. 10. NOW, WE TAKE ITA NO. 39/AHD/12 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 . REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.1,78,5 78/- U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED. 11. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INC OME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 31.03.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,72,150/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AT RS.1,78,578/-. ASSESSEES C ASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOTICE U/S. 14 1(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28.07.2008 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT FOR RS.1 ,78,578/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 20 01-02 & 2003-04, WHICH WERE SET ASIDE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FOR RE-DECI DING THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. SIMILAR QUESTION NAIRE, WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 & 2003-04 AS REFERRED ABOVE IN ITA NOS. 37 & 38/AHD/2012 WERE ISSUED FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ALSO AND N OTHING MATERIAL TO THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO, FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, AS WE HA VE TAKEN ABOVE IN DECIDING ITA NOS. 37 TO 39/AHD/12 A.Y. 01-02, 03-04 & 07-08 (ITO VS. MEHUL VISABHAI PATEL) PAGE 9 THE ITA NOS. 37 & 38/AHD/2012, ACCORDINGLY HELD THA T ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, WE FIND IT JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEA L OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS FILED BY REVE NUE ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. ! '# $ / CONCERNED CIT 4. $ - / CIT (A) 5. %&' (('# , '# , ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. '+, / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / '# , !