The ITO, Ward-2(4), Surat V. M/s. Indo Aurlicht Manufacturing Company, Surat

ITA 985/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0005 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK WADEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 10AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), ROOM NO.119, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURAGATE, SURAT 395001 APPELLANT VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PLOT NO.30 & 31, SURAT ECONOMIC ZONE, SACHIN, SURAT 394230 RESPONDENT PAN: AACFI3083R / BY REVENUE : SHRI VIVEK WADEKAR, CIT. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2016 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 A RISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-II, SURATS ORDER DATED 30.01.2013, IN APPEA L NO. CAS-II/278/2011- ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - 12, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADS THA T THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION OF SECTION 10AA DEDUCTION OF RS.11,23,88,857/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE INFRASTRUCTU RE FOR MANUFACTURING GAS MANTLES IN ITS SEZ UNIT IN QUESTION SO AS TO CLAIM THE IMPUGNED RELIEF. 3. WE NOW ADVERT TO RELEVANT FACTS. THIS ASSESSEE/ A FIRM SET UP ITS ELIGIBLE UNIT IN THE SURATS SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE IN THE RE LEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR MANUFACTURING GAS MANTLES. IT OBTAINED SEZ AUTHORI TIES APPROVAL ON 19.07.2007 HAVING A YEARS VALIDITY. THE ASSESSEE T HEREAFTER APPROACHED THE SEZ DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER ON 23.07.2008 SEEKING EXTENSION. THE SAID AUTHORITY GRANTED ITS ABOVE EXTENSION ON 30.07.2008 EXTENDING THE ABOVE VALIDITY PERIOD UP TO 18.01.2009. THE ASSESSEE THE REAFTER APPEARS TO HAVE FILED ITS RETURN ON 25.09.2009 AFTER CLAIMING SECTI ON 10AA DEDUCTION IN QUESTION AMOUNTING TO RS.11,23,88,857/-. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP SCRUTINY. HE FOUN D A PRIMA FACIE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFLATED ITS SEZ UNIT EXPENSES. HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30.11.2011 INTER ALIA STATING TH AT ASSESSEES ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR READ A FIGURE OF RS.85,124/- AGAINST TURN OVER OF RS.14.8 CRORES AS AGAINST THAT OF RS.99,571/- INVOLVING TURN OVER FIGURES OF RS.15,10,80,585/- IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13. HIS FURTHER CASE WAS THAT ASSESSEES EXPORTS STARTED IN LATE SEPTEMBER 2008 WITHOUT PUTTING TO USE KEY MACHINES OF PAPER CUTTIN G, MANTLE RING TYING, GAS STORAGE CASCADE AND CUTTING MACHINE ETC. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ALSO APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD PURCHASED SS ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - MANTLE DIPPING MACHINE ON 01.02.2009. ITS LABOUR C HARGES INCURRED IN SEZ UNITS WERE STATED TO HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY IN QUESTION HAD TAKEN PLACE OUTSIDE THE SEZ IN QUESTIO N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER DREW A COMPARISON OF ASSESSEES AND ITS SISTER CONCERNS POWER, WAGES, TRAVELLING RAW MATERIAL AND EMPLOYEES EXPEN SES TO ALLEGE THAT IT HAD IN FACT INDULGED IN DEFLATION OF EXPENSES. 5. THE ASSESSEES REPLY CAME ON 06.12.2011. IT PLE ADED THAT ITS TURN OVER IN THE IMPUGNED A.YS. 2009-10 & 2011-12 TO BE INVOL VING CORRESPONDING FIGURES OF RS.14.08 CRORES AND RS.15.10 CRORES IN M ANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIES THAT IT HAD BEEN UNDERTAKING TWO KINDS OF MANUFACTURING I.E. SOFT AND HARD GAS MANTLES AND EL ECTRICITY CONSUMPTION THEREIN DULY MATCHED. 6. WE PROCEED FURTHER TO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER CAME ACROSS ASSESSEES ADDITION OF FIXED ASSETS OF RS.7, 39,670/- MADE IN SECOND HALF OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. HE OPINED THAT 95% OF THE TOTAL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS WERE PURCHASED IN THE SAID LATTER HALF T O FALSIFY ASSESSEES CLAIMING EXPORT SALES IN QUESTION. 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY ONCE AGAIN. IT SUB MITTED THAT ITS ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION HAD INCREASED DUE TO INVESTMENT IN POW ER GUZZLING EQUIPMENTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. IT WOULD CLARIFY THAT IT HAD ALREADY AVAILABLE AT ITS DISPOSAL THREE HEAVY DUTY PAPER SHEET CUTTING M ACHINE WELL BEFORE START OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE B ALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLEADED THAT IT HAD INSTALLED 15 MANTLE RIN G TYING MACHINES W.E.F. THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AS SHOWN IN FIXED ASSET SCH EDULE FOLLOWED BY PURCHASE OF FIVE MORE MACHINES ALONG WITH COPY OF PURCHASE I NVOICES/BILL OF ENTRIES. IT THEN EXPLAINED TO HAVE ACQUIRED SIX IMPORTED HIGH P RESSURE CYLINDERS FORMING ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 4 - PART OF FIXED ASSET SCHEDULE ALONG WITH PURCHASE BI LLS/BILL OF ENTRY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT IT HAD INSTALLED A WIR E BENDING/CUTTING MACHINE IN SEPTEMBER 2008 WHICH WAS NO MORE A PREFERABLE EQUIP MENT IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS. IT WOULD CONTINUE TO EXPLAIN FIRE EXTINGU ISHES AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE AS WELL BEFORE START OF THE RELEVANT FINAN CIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT 80% OF THE FACTORY BUILDING AND ELEC TRICAL INSTALLATION HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE JULY 2008. IT HAD TAKEN POSS ESSION OF THREE DEEPING MACHINES. THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED ITS CLARIFICATION THAT ALL ITS LABOUR CHARGES CONTAINED THE RELEVANT DETAILS AS UTILIZED IN MANUF ACTURING PROCESS IN QUESTION WHICH WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT UNDERTAKEN BY ITS SISTER CONCERN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTI ON 29.12.2011 REITERATING THE REASON STATED IN HIS SCRUTINY SO CAUSE NOTICE H EREINABOVE TO DISALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SECTION 10AA DEDUCTION AMOUNTIN G TO RS.11,23,88,857/- IN QUESTION. 8. THE CIT(A) REVERSES ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION A S UNDER: 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE BY AO AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. THE FACTS REVEAL THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF APPELLANT MANUFACTURING THE HAR D AND SOFT MANTLES. THE PLANT WAS SET UP IN SURAT SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE BY IMPORTING THE EQUIPMENTS, TECHNOLOGY, KNOW HOW, MACHINERY, PATENT S, TRADEMARKS ETC. FROM FALKS VERITAS LTD., MALTA WITH THE PERMIS SION OF DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SEZ, VIDE LETTER DATED 19.07.2007, HA VING VALIDITY PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WHICH WAS A LATER ON EXTENDED FO R FURTHER PERIOD. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLAN T FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN FORM OF LETTER FROM DEVELOPM ENT COMMISSIONER, SEZ AND COPY OF ARE I FORM (APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF EXCISABLE GOODS FOR EXPORT) TO ESTABLISH THE MANUFACTURING AC TIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY HIM. BEING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT WAS FORWA RDED TO AO VIDE LETTER DATED 11.06.2012 OF THE UNDERSIGNED FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE AO VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 24.09.2012 SUBMITTED A S UNDER:- 'KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 5 - I SUBMIT HEREWITH THE REQUISITE COMMENTS ON THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ABOVE NAMED ASSESSEE BEFO RE YOUR HONOUR AS UNDER:- (A) LETTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SURAT S EZ DATED 29/05/2012:- ON VERIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION. IT I S REVEALED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER HAS CONFIRMED VID E LETTER NO. F NO. SSEZ/II/16/2007-08/216 DTD. 29/05/2012 RE CEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE'S LETTER DTD. 08/09/2008 AND THE AUTHE NTICITY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. IN THIS CONNECTION, A LETTER WAS WRITTEN TO THE DEV ELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SURAT SEZ ON 18/06/2012 REQUESTING HI M TO FURNISH COPY OF LETTER DTD. 04/09/2008 WRITTEN BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH PROPER EVIDENCE REFLECTING DATE OF RECEIPT BY HIS OFFICE ALONGWITH INWARD NUMBER. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ER HAS FORWARDED THE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER VIDE HIS LETT ER DTD. 09/07/2012. (COPY ENCLOSED) ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID COPY OF LETTER, IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT THE LETTER WAS RECEI VED IN THE OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER ON 11/09/2008 AT IN WARD NO. 82 REGARDING COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION BY THE ASSE SSEE. COPY OF ARE I FORM SIGNED BY THE SUPPLIER AS WELL A S CUSTOMS OFFICE FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL BY THE ASSESSEE WIT HOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY. THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. ARE I FORM SIGN ED BY CUSTOMS OFFICE AT SURAT SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AND S UPPLIER ARE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THAT MATERIAL STATED IN AR E I FORM HAS BEEN AT ADDRESS AS MENTIONED THEREIN I.E. AS SESSEE'S PREMISES AT SURAT SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE. THE CUSTOM S OFFICE HAS CERTIFIED ON THE BACK SIDE OF ARE I FORM THAT C ONSIGNMENT MENTIONED THEREIN HAS ARRIVED AT SSEZ, SACHIN. ARE I FORM DOES NOT CONFIRM ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT. THIS EVIDENCE MAY THUS BE CONSIDERED ON MERITS. ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - THUS, IN VIEW OF AFORESAID REMAND REPORT, AO ADMITT ED THE AUTHENTICITY OF LETTER OF DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SURAT SEZ AN D DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY EXCISE AUTHORITIES IN CONNECTION WITH COM MENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY BY APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS RAISED OBJECTIONS ON THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY APPELLANT AND CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT IS NOT CARRYING ON MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITY IN THE SEZ PREMISES AND IS ENGAGED IN TRADING ACTIVITY . 5.1 THE AO HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS INSTALLED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS OF RS. 7,39,676/- AFTER THE D ATE OF 30.09.2008 AND IN ABSENCE OF THESE ELECTRICAL FITTINGS, MANUFACTUR ING ACTIVITY CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT. HOWEVER, AO HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT APPELLANT IMPORTED A RUNNING PLANT FROM MALTA AND GOT IT INSTALLED AT SURAT SEZ. THE IMPORTED PLANT WAS VERY VOLUMINOUS WEIGHING IN EXCE SS OF 87,000 KGS. AND WAS IMPORTED IN INDIA IN EIGHT CONTAINERS. THE COMPLETE PLANT WAS INSTALLED AT THE APPELLANT'S MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT SURAT SEZ USING ALL THE ARTICLES RECEIVED FROM MALTA. VERY FEW ADDI TIONS WERE NEEDED TO BE MADE THEREAFTER ON WHICH AO HAS RAISED OBJECTI ONS. THE MAIN OBJECTION OF AO IS THAT THESE ELECTRICA L EQUIPMENTS WERE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED AFTER 30.09.2008 AS THE BIL LS AND LEDGER ENTRIES REFLECT THE DATES OF BILLS AFTE R OCTOBER, 2008. IN THIS CONNECTION, APPELLANT HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THESE EQUIPMENTS WERE INSTALLED MUCH EARLIER BUT THE BILLS WERE OBTA INED FROM THE ELECTRICIAN NAMELY SHRI GHANSYAM PATEL IN THE LATER DATES. MOREOVER, THESE ADDITIONS WERE OF SMALL MACHINES AND NO P RUDENT BUSINESSMAN WILL ALLOW CRORES WORTH OF INVESTM ENT GO IDLE FOR SAKE OF FEW THOUSANDS OF SMALL MACHINES. SO FAR AS STAMP ING OF BILLS RELATED TO ELECTRICAL FITTING IS CONCERNED, APPELLANT- HAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT A MANUFACTURING UNIT HOLDER AT A SEZ IS REQUIR ED TO GET THE GOODS INSPECTED, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY THE EXCISE AUTHORI TY ONLY IF THE MANUFACTURING UNIT HOLDER INTENDS TO AVAIL ANY CONC ESSION SUCH AS CENTRAL] EXCISE, VAT ETC. IN THE CASE O F APPELLANT, ELECTRICAL GOODS CARRY NO VAT/ EXCISE BENEFIT THEREFORE THOS E WERE NOT STAMPED. THUS, THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THE ISSUE OF INSTALLA TION OF ELECTRIC EQUIPMENTS ON WHICH OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY AO. S IMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, THE AO HAS ANAL YZED PART OF THE DETAILS WHEREAS THE REVISED FIGURES OF CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES NO TICED BY AO. THE AO HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTIONS ON THE REVI SED FIGURES GIVEN BY APPELLANT. ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 7 - 5.2 THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE MACHI NERIES SUCH AS MANTLE RING TYING MACHINE, CNG STORAGE CASCADE, SS MANTLE DIPPING MACHINE, COMPUTER ETC. WERE PURCHASED AFTER THE DATE OF 30.09.2010 AND WITHOUT THESE MACHINES, PRODUCTION I S NOT POSSIBLE. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE MACHINERIES WERE ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF APPELLANT AND ONLY TO INCREASE THE PR ODUCTIVITY, FURTHER MACHINERY WAS PURCHASED. AS PER APPELLANT, HE WAS A LREADY HAVING 15 MANTLE RING TYING MACHINES, 6 CNG STORAGE CASCADE, 3 SS MANTLE DIPPING MACHINES AND COMPUTERS IN HIS POSSESSION AN D PRODUCTION WAS ALREADY GOING ON AND FURTHER MACHINERIES, AS ME NTIONED BY AO, HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION. THE REFORE, THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY AO IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT TENA BLE. IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF LABOUR CHARGES, IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TH AT TO ENABLE ITSELF TO CONCENTRATE ON CORE ACTIVITIES, APPELLANT GETS A NCILLARY ACTIVITIES LIKE PRINTING OF PACKAGING MATERIAL, REPAIR, POWDER COAT ING OF WINDOW GRILLS ETC. DONE FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES AND THESE AC TIVITIES ARE ALLOWABLE AND WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF SEZ ACT. HOW EVER, NO PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE OF HARD OR SOFT MANTLE HAS BEEN OUTS OURCED AT ALL. THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT IS SUPPORTED WITH THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CONTINENTAL ENGINEERS LTD, REPORTED IN 338 ITR 290. 5.3 FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY AO ON THE ISSUE OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND CO MMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE BASED ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE APPELLANT HAS SUCCESSFUL LY EXPLAINED ALL THE SO-CALLED DISCREPANCIES' AS NOTED BY AO. THE MAIN P ART OF PLANT WAS IMPORTED BY APPELLANT TO COMMENCE THE PRODUCTION AN D FEW ADDITIONS WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, 5EZ SURAT HAS ALSO AUTHENTICATED THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AO, IN HIS REMAND REPORT, HAS ALSO ADMITTED THE AUT HENTICITY OF THESE EVIDENCES. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT WAS CARRYING ON THE MANUFACTURING AC TIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE SEZ PREMISES THEREF ORE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT OF RS. 11,23,88,857/- IS ALLOWABLE. CONSEQUENTLY, I DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 8 - 8. HEARD BOTH SIDES REITERATING THEIR RESPECTIVE ST ANDS. THE SOLE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEES SEZ UNIT IN QUESTION HAS ACTUALLY COMMENCED ITS MANUFACTURING A CTIVITY IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR OR NOT SO AS TO CLAIM SECTION 10AA DEDUCTION HEREINABOVE. IT HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP ITS ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING IN SURAT SEZ IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS Y EAR. WE COME TO THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE FILE. PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINS SURAT SEZS LETTER DATED 19.07.2007 AUTHENTICATING ASSESS EES APPLICATION DATED 03.07.2007 FOR SETTING UP THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING IN QUESTION. IT APPROVED THE SAME SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS I.E. DATE OF COMMENCEMENT TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. THIS SEZ THEREAFTER ISSUES CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE ABOVE APPROVAL AT PA GE 29. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY PAGE 30 SHOWING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE GOT INVOICE DA TED 31.10.2007 REGARDING PURCHASE OF MACHINE FROM A MALTA BASED COMPANY. PA GE 36 IS BILL OF ENTRY THEREOF DATED 07.12.2007. THE ASSESSEES CHARTERED ENGINEERS THEN ISSUED A CERTIFICATED DATED 28.07.2007 REGARDING COMPLETION OF 80% WORK IN FACTORY BUILDING AT PAGE 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PAGE 39 IS ASESSEES LETTER DATED 23.07.2008 SEEKING SIX MONTHS EXTENSION FOR COMMENC EMENT OF PRODUCTION. THE SURAT SEZ DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER EXTENDED THI S TIME LIMIT UP TO 18.01.2009. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER SENT AN INTIMATIO N TO THE SAID AUTHORITY ON 08.09.2008 ITSELF REGARDING COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCT ION. THIS CASE FILE FURTHER SUGGESTS AT PAGE 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT ONE SHRI GHANSHYAM PATEL SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.01.2012 TO HAVE INS TALLED ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS TILL AUGUST 2008 FOLLOWED BY CONFIRMATIO N. ABOVE ALL THIS IS SURAT SEZ DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS CONFIRMATION D ATED 29.05.2012 AT PAGE 270 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT HE HAD RECEIVED COM MENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURING INFORMATION AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. TH E ASSESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT AT PAGE 274 FURTHER AFFIRMS ASSESSEE S MATERIAL PURCHASES AS CERTIFIED BY THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES. THE REVENUE F AILS TO DISPUTE CORRECTNESS ITA NO. 985/AHD/2013 (ITO VS. M/S. INDO AURLICHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY) A.Y. 2009-10 - 9 - THEREOF IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BY PLACING ON RECO RD ANY OTHER COGENT MATERIAL. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN T HE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF THE SECTION 10AA DEDUCTION IN QUESTION. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.] SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 29/11/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ()*+ ,--. ./0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1+23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // ./0