M/s. Shalimar Pellet Feeds Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 949/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1297 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOULEAN HANGSHING
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TULSYAN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Document seized; Additional depreciation; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 14A; 80IB; 32; 263; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.B ALAGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NOS. 948 TO 952 /KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008- 09 TO 2011-12 & 2013-14 M/S SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD. -VS- D CIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA [PAN: AADCS 8617 H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI A.K.TULSYAN, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI GOULEAN HANGSHING, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2017 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 ARISE OUT OF THE INDEPENDENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED PRINCI PAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD CIT] DATED 09.0 3.2017, 27.03.2017, 09.03.2017 AND 09.03.2017 RESPECTIVELY PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE INDEPENDENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 27.03.2015 AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL IN THESE APPEA LS THE SAME ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE CONVENIENCE. 2.THE APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 HAS BEEN DEALT SEPARATELY E LSEWHERE IN THIS APPEAL. 2 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 2 3. THE FIRST PRELIMINARY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT HAD VALIDLY INVOKED HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTIO N U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A LIMITED COMPANY BELONGING TO SHALIMAR GROUP DERIVING INCOME FROM MANUFACTURE A ND SELLING OF POULTRY FEEDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON A REGULAR BASIS U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENTS WERE DULY FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE NORMAL COURSE. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREM ISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT 17B & C, EVEREST HOUSE, 46C, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, KOLKATA 700 071 ON 13.12.2012. PANCHANAMAS WERE DRAWN IN THE NAME OF PERSONS INCLU DING THE ASSESSEE. THE FOLLOWING VALUABLES AND DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND / SEIZ ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH : ADDRESS OF THE PREMISES WHERE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED CASH JEWELLARY IDENTIFICATION MARK OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FOUND (RS.) SEIZED (RS.) FOUND (RS.) SEIZED (RS.) 17B & C, EVEREST HOUSE, 46C, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, KOLKATA- 700071 32,67,500/- 39,00,000 NIL NIL SPG/1 TO SPG/13 AND SPG/HD/1 5. THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENTS FALL UNDER THE CATEGOR Y OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS (I.E CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS) AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 13.12.2012 :- ASST YEAR REMARKS 2008-09 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 23.12.20 10 2009-10 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 22.11.20 11 2010-11 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.20 11 3 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 3 2011-12 TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) OF THE ACT EXPIRED ON 30.9.2012. HENCE CONSTRUED TO BE COMPLETED ASSES SMENT. HENCE AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 STOOD UNABATED I.E COMPLETED. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH, THE LD AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT ON 27.3.201 5 FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ORIGINAL ASSESSED INCOME 27558140 46641970 74780280 -NA- ORIGINAL RETURNED INCOME 112511994 ADD: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT 8597020 10367586 20289380 33278072 ADD: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT 50 LESS: B/FD SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF AY 09-10 SET OFF (5960500) ASSESSED INCOME U/S 153A 36155160 57009556 950696 60 139829612 6. THE LD CIT SOUGHT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENTS FRAM ED U/S 153A OF THE ACT ON 27.3.2015 FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 TREATING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID ORDER DID NOT ENQUIRE CERTAIN ASPECTS SUCH AS (I) ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECI ATION ; (II) UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALES AND (III) RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON LORRIES USED FOR TRAN SPORTATION OF RAW MATRAILS AND FINISHED GOODS. SHOW CAUSE NOTICES TO THIS EFFECT WERE ISSU ED BY THE LD CIT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE FI LED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 4 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 4 TOGETHER WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES BEFORE THE L D CIT BOTH ON LEGAL AND FACTUAL ASPECTS. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTIC E OF THE LD CIT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH REGARD ING THE AFORESAID ITEMS AND HENCE THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 CANNOT BE DISTURBED BY THE LD CIT. THE ASSESSEE P LACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAES OF PCIT VVS SALASAR STOCK BROKING LIMITED (ITAT NO. 26 4 OF 2016) DATED 24.8.2016 AND CIT VS VEERPRABHU MARKETING LIMITED REPORTED IN 73 TAXMANN.COM 149 (CALCUTTA) . ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS WARRANTING REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12, THEY WERE ISSUED ONLY ON THE ASPECT OF ADD ITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AND RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON LORRIES, WHIC H DOES NOT EMANATE FROM ANY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HENCE IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO COULD NOT BE TERMED AS ER RONEOUS WARRANTING REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009-10 ON THE ISSUE OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALES , APART FROM T HE AFORESAID TWO COMMON ISSUES, THE LD CIT PLACED RELIANCE ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS SHLA-4 FROM PAGES 2 TO 105 AND SPG-2 FROM PAGES 18 TO 20 AS THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BEFORE THE LD CIT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS SHLA -4 FROM PAGES 2 TO 105 CONTIANS ONLY SALES BIL LS RELATING TO SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO M/S SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED . THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT SUCH INFORMATION IS ALREADY PART OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NOTHING INCRIMINATING THEREIN. 7.1. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THE ALLEGED DIFFER ENCE IN SALES BY WAY OF A DETAILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT AN D THE SAME DID NOT EMANATE FROM THE 5 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 5 SEIZED MATERIALS. ACCORDING TO LD CIT, THE ASSESS EE HAD SHOWN SALES MADE TO M/S SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED TO THE TUNE OF RS 48,78 ,94,116/-., WHEREAS THE SAID COMPANY HAD SHOWN PURCHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE AT RS 86,74,19,300/- THEREBY LEADING TO THE DIFFERENCE IN UNREPORTED SALES OF THE ASSESS EE AT RS 37,95,25,184/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN SALES AS UNDER: - THE SALES FIGURE TAKEN BY YOUR HONOURS OF RS 48,78 ,94,116/- DOES NOT REFLECT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED. THIS FIGURE IS WRONG. . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THROUGH ITS DIFFERENT UNITS MA DE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF SALES TO M/S SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED WHICH IN TOTALIT Y IS TALLYING WITH THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE IMPUGNED PARTY. THE D ETAILS RELATING TO THE SAME IS PRESENTED IN A TABULATED FORM IN THE FOLLOWING PARA S FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF YOUR HONOUR. .. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY M/S SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED FROM THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- PAYMENT MADE TO NATURE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT(RS.) SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD PURCHASE OF POULTRY FEEDS & FEED INGREDIENTS 43,90,73,797/- SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD. (BISHNUPUR) PURCHASE OF POULTRY FEEDS & FEED INGREDIENTS 42,83,45,504/- TOTAL PURCHASE OF FEED & FEED INGREDIENTS 86,74,19,301/- SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD. (KOLAR) PURCHASING OF HATCHING EGGS 1,03,21,815/- TOTAL PURCHASE 87,77,41,116/ - THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED FROM ITS VARIOUS UNITS AND DIVIS IONS AS TABULATED BELOW:- SL. PARTICULARS OF THE UNIT AMOUNT (RS.) AMOUNT(RS. ) 1 SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED (BISHNUPUR UNIT) 42,83,45,504/- 2 SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED (BAKULTALA) 30,80,95,547/- 2 SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED 10,63,76,670/- 6 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 6 (ILLAMBAZAR UNIT) 3 SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED (RANCHI UNIT) 2,46,01,580/- 43,90,73,797/- TOTAL SALE OF FEED & FEED INGREDIENTS 86,74,19,301/- 4 SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED (KOLAR, KARNATAKA) BREEDING FARM SALE OF HATCHING EGGS 1,03,21,815/- TOTAL SALES TO SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LTD. 87,77,41,116/- ACCORDINGLY IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTE LY NO DIFFERENCE IN SALES FIGURE AS ALLEGED BY THE LD CIT. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BEFORE THE LD CIT THAT THE SEI ZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS SPG-2 FROM PAGES 18 TO 29 CONTAINS THE TRIAL BALANCE OF THE AS SESSEE . 7.2. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BEFORE THE LD CIT THAT TH E SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS SPG-2 PAGES 18 TO 20 CONTAINS TRIAL BALANCE FOR THE PERIO D FROM 1.4.2012 TO 31.3.2013 WHICH ARE PART OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESS EE AND THERE IS NOTHING INCRIMINATING THEREIN. IN ANY CASE, THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT PERTA INS TO THE ASST YEAR 2013-14 AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS INCRIMINATING FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009-10. 8. THE LD CIT HOWEVER IGNORED ALL THE EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM AND OBSERVED THAT THE LD AO HAD NOT MADE ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND TREATED THE ORDER OF THE LD AO AS ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE LD AO TO PASS A FRE SH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEALS BEFOR E US. 7 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 7 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CON TAINING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THEREON BEFORE T HE LD AO AND THE LD CIT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND HE NCE STOOD UNABATED. IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS RELIED UPON SUPRA THAT THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS CO ULD BE DISTURBED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF PRESENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND IN TH E COURSE OF SEARCH. WE FIND THAT THERE ARE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AS THE ISSUES ADDRESSE D BY THE LD CIT ARE ONLY INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL S FOUND IN THE SEARCH. WITH REGARD TO THE ASST YEAR 2009-10, WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL MUCH LESS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, SO AS TO DISTURB THE EARLIER CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009-10. HE NCE THE LD AO HAD RIGHTLY NOT CONSIDERED THESE ASPECTS IN THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PROPER EXPLANATION S REGARDING THESE ITEMS BEFORE THE LD CIT AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DULY EXPLAINED THE COMPLETE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON BY THE LD CIT IN HIS ORDER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THOSE MATERIALS ARE NOT INC RIMINATING AT ALL AND ARE FORMING PART OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SE EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE LD CIT WHILE DIRECTING THE LD AO TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH. WE HOLD THAT WHEN AN ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE AS PER LAW IN SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE SAID ORDER CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS ERRONEOU S WARRANTING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD CIT. WE HOLD THAT EVE N ON MERITS, THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE LD CIT FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION ON THE ISSUES PROPOSED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF LD CIT. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FI ND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 DE SERVE TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, 8 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 8 THE PRELIMINARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH E ISSUE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 20 11-12 ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 952/KOL/2017 ASST YEAR 2013-14 ASSESSEE APPEAL 10. THE FIRST PRELIMINARY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN TH IS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT HAD VALIDLY INVOKED HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/ S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY BELONGING TO SHALIMAR GROUP DERIVING INCOME FROM MANUFACTURE AND SELLING OF POULTRY FEEDS. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT 17B & C, EVEREST HOUSE, 46C, CHOWRINGHE E ROAD, KOLKATA 700071 ON 13.12.2012. THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2013-14 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 30.11.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 16,19,99,710/-. THE LD AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.3.2015 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS 20,27,76,841/-. THE LD AO DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS 4,04,09,321/- IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT ON 27.3.2015 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE MANU FACTURING ACTIVITY. APART FROM THIS, HE ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS 3,67,816/- U/S 14A O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER BEFORE THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [ IN SHORT THE LD CITA] WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANC E U/S 80IB OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 11.2.2016. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE TO THIS TRIBUNAL, THE SAME WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDEED ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND HENCE ELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT FROM THE EARLIER YEARS AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE MANUFACTURING 9 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 9 ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURING PROCESS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IN THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER. 10.2. THE LD CIT SOUGHT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT F RAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.3.2015 TREATING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID ORDER DID NOT ENQUIRE THE ASPEC T OF ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT IN THE SUM OF RS 1,64,48,649/-. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THIS EFFECT WAS ISSUED BY THE LD CIT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.11.2016. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAI LED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TOGETHER WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES VIDE REPLY DATED 3.2.2017 BEFORE THE LD CIT BOTH ON LEGAL AND FACTUAL ASPECTS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURING PROCESS BY WAY OF DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN EACH OF THE PROCESS (ENCLOSED IN PAGES 123 TO 128 OF PAPER BOOK). IT WAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE NO TICE OF THE LD CIT THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 HAD DULY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND THEREBY ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AND COPY OF THE ORDER WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT. ONC E IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE, THE ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY USED IN MANUFACTURING PR OCESS IS AUTOMATIC. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD AO CANNOT BE T ERMED AS ERRONEOUS WARRANTING REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 10.3. THE LD CIT HOWEVER IGNORED ALL THE EXPLANATIO NS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM AND OBSERVED THAT THE LD AO HAVING HELD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY O UGHT TO HAVE CORRESPONDINGLY WITHDRAWN THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT . HENCE NON- WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAME CONSTITUTES AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD AO WHICH ALSO CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDI NGLY HE DIRECTED THE LD AO TO PASS 10 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 10 AFRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. PCIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDE R OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT & MACHINERY U/S 32 (1)(IIA). THE LD. AO HAS CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY IN THAT RESPECT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS SUCH, EXERCISING OF THE JURISDICTIO N U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT IS BAD IN LAW, AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 NEEDS TO BE Q UASHED. HENCE, THE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LD. PCIT WAS WRONG IN DISALLOWING ADDIT IONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,64,48,649/- CLAIMED U/S 32(1)(IIA) ON PLANT & MAC HINERY, ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. HE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING HONBLE ITAT, KOLKATA, IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE T HAT THE PRODUCTION OF POULTRY FEEDS AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WRONG IN CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT & MACHINERY U/S 32 (1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, THE MISINTERPRETATION OF FACTS BY THE LD. PCIT AND EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 IS FACTUALLY WRONG AND NEED TO BE QUASHED. 3. THAT THE PETITIONER CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND/S OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 10.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. A T THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2 016 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2013-14 IN IT(SS)A NO. 22/KOL/2016 HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND THEREBY ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. ONCE IT IS HELD SO, THE ALLOWANCE TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT ON PLANT AND MACHINERY IS AUTOMATIC AND THIS WAS SPECIFICALL Y BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD CIT BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN CONVENIENTLY IGNORED BY THE LD CIT WHILE PASSING THE REVISION ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN THESE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 11 ITA NOS.948-952/KOL/2017 M/S SHALIMAR PALLET FEEDS LTD. A.YRS.08-09 TO 11-12 & 13-14 11 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS. 948-951 / KOL / 2017 FOR THE ASST YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 ARE ALLOWED AND APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 952/KOL/2017 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2013-14 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17.10.2017 SD/- SD/- [N.V. VASUDEVAN] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17.10.2017 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD., 17B & C, EVEREST HOUSE, 46C, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, KOLKATA- 700071 2. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 1 10, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 700107. 3.P.C.I.T, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S