M/s Health Biotech Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 988/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 98821514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 988/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S HEALTH BIOTECH LTD., VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) , CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AABCH1876K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.12.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CHANDIGARH DATED 30.09.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS THEREBY ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF 10% EXPENDITURE UNDER VAR IOUS HEAD. THE ACTION OF THE CIT (A) IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED AS NO INSTANCE OF ANY UN-VOUCHED EXPEND ITURE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIM E OF 2 ASSESSMENT. AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF THE PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTS IN THE UNIT IN THE TAX FRE E ZONE AT BADDI (HP). THE ASSESSEE STARTED THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION / MANUFA CTURING OF THE PHARMA PRODUCTS ON 9.8.2005. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPE NDITURE OF RS. 13,36,816/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS VIZ ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES OF R S. 10,112/-, MISC. OFFICE EXPENSES RS. 6,40,758/-, OTHER EXPENSES RS. 13,413/ -, POCKET EXPENSES RS. 90,000/-, STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES RS. 2,13,334/- AND RS. 3,69,199/-. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUC E COMPLETE SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THESE EXPENSES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OPINED THAT THE DEBIT OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF TH E DIRECTORS UNDER THESE HEADS CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HE THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 10% O F THE EXPENDITURE AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ADDITION COMES TO RS. 1,33,682/-. ON APPEAL, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SHRI TEJ MO HAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE COMPANY IN THIS YEAR IS RS. 11,08,93,738/- AND NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE IS 6.17%. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED A ND NO ADVERSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AUDITORS. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTE D OUT THAT DEBIT OF PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE DIRECTOR UNDER THE HEADS IN QUESTIO N CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF ANY PERSONAL EXPENSE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES TO 3 THE EXTENT OF 10% MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIO N. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE EXPE NSES CLAIMED BY IT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING THE INSTANCES WHEREIN T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TURN OV ER ACHIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE NATURE OF ASSESSEE BUSINESS, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO DISALLOW 5% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. 5. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINI NG DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON THE GROUND TH AT THE CLAIM IN FORM NO. 10CCB WAS MADE IN THE REVISE RET URN AND NOT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE LEARNED CIT ( A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINA L RETURN WAS FILED IN TIME AND THE APPELLANT WAS LEGA LLY ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY CLAIM IN THE REVISED RETURN. TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 6. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 29.9.2011, DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 6,72,05,864/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER THE RECEIPT OF DEMAND NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RE VISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.10.2012 IN WHICH GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,72, 05,864/- WAS SHOWN AND TOTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AT NIL. AFTER EXAMINING T HE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI A OF RS. 6,72,0564/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHE D FORM NO.10CCB CLAIMING 4 DEDUCTION OF RS. 7,73,51,408/-. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80A C OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 7. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND A GAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/ S ELECON PACKPET, SOLAN VS. ITO PARWANO IN ITA NO. 421/CHD/2011 RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID CASE IS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.31,43,965/- BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80I C IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE APPELLANT UNLESS RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) I.E. ORIGINAL RETURN. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO CLAIM TH E DEDUCTION IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE T O HIM IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A TECHNICAL ERROR WHILE UPLOADING THE RETURN ON E-FILING SYSTEM AND SUBSEQU ENTLY REVISED RETURN WITHIN TIME HAD BEEN FILED TO RECTIF Y THE ERROR. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE, OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE MANUFACTUR E OF PET BOTTLES AND PRE FORM AND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CL AIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS THE SECOND YEAR OF T HE PRODUCTION AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AFORESAID DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80A OF THE ACT IS THAT WHERE ANY DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 80IA/80IB/80IC/80ID AND 80 IE OF THE ACT, NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO T HE ASSESSEE UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR ON OR BEFORE THE DU E DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. TH E 5 REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT IS A BURDE N UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME IN TH E PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANN ER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND SUCH RETURN SHALL FURNISHED ON OR BE FORE THE DUE DATE. UNDER EXPLANATION-2 THE DUE DATE IN RELATION OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF PERSONS ARE ENUMERAT ED. EVERY PERSON WHO HAD FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OR IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, IF DISCOVERS, ANY OMISSI ON OR WRONG SUBMISSION THEREIN, MAY FURNISH REVISED RETUR N AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETI ON OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 8. UNDER SECTION 139D OF THE ACT THE BOARD IS AUTHO RIZED TO MAKE RULES FOR FILING OF RETURN IN ELECTRONIC FORM. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE RULES PROVIDING FOR THE CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE RETURN IN ELECTRONIC FORM; THE FORM AND MANNER IN WHICH THE RETURN IN ELECTRONIC FORM IS TO BE FURNISHED AND TH E DOCUMENTS, STATEMENTS, CERTIFICATES, AUDITED REPORT S, ETC., WHICH MAY NOT BE FURNISHED ALONGWITH THE RETU RN IN ELECTRONIC FORM BUT SHALL BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON DEMAND. AS PER SECTION 139D(D ) OF THE ACT, THE BOARD IS TO FRAME RULES PROVIDING FOR THE COMPUTERS RESOURCES OR THE ELECTRONIC RECORD TO WHI CH THE RETURN IN ELECTRONIC FORM MAY BE TRANSMITTED. T HE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139D OF THE ACT WE RE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.6.2006. THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER SHIP FIRM WHOSE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED. THIS IS THE SECO ND YEAR OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSMENT FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IC OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED T O THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD E-FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME ON 28.10.2007 I.E. WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED ON RECORD BY T HE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REVEALS THAT WHILE E-FILING THE RET URN OF INCOME THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS REFLECTED AT RS.31,43,695/- AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ALSO REFLEC TED AT THE SAME FIGURE OF RS.31,43,965/- WITH THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER CHAPTER-VIA WHICH REFLECTED AT NIL. HOWEVER, ON THE AFORESAID TOTAL INCOME OF RS.31,43,965/- THE NE T TAX PAYABLE, WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSEE, WAS GENERATED B Y THE 6 SYSTEM ITSELF WORKED OUT TO NIL. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DUE TO COMPUTER SYSTEM ERROR THE R ETURN OF INCOME REFLECTED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.31,43,965/- AS AGAINST NIL. ON DETECTING THE ABOVESAID ERROR IN I TS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FILE D A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME THROUGH E-FILING UNDER WHI CH THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER-VIA WAS REFLECTED AT RS.31,43,965/- AND TOTAL TAX PAYABLE WAS DETERMINED AT NIL. 9. THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME THROUGH E-FILING SYSTEM WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.6.2006. THE BOARD VIDE CIRCULAR NO.9/2006 DATED 10.10.2006 INTRODUCED THE NEW RETURN FORM/S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ALSO FORMULATED THE PROCEDURE FOR E-FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE OPTION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE E-RETURN IN ACCORDANCE WITH TWO SCHEMES I.E. ELECTR ONIC FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME SCHEME, 2004 (NOTIFI ED VIDE SO NO. 1073(E) DATED 30.9.2004) OR FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME INTERNET SCHEME, 2004 (NOTIFIED VI DE SO NO. 1074(E) DATED 30.9.2004). ALL THE CORPORATE TAXPAYERS WERE NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ELECTRONICALLY AFTE R 24.7.2006. HOWEVER, FOR OTHER CLASSES OF TAX PAYE RS THE SCHEME TO FURNISH E-RETURN WAS OPTIONAL. THE SAID RETURN WAS TO BE FILED WITHOUT ANY ATTACHMENT/ANNEX URE OR THE AUDIT REPORT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CLARIFIED VIDE CLAUSE-6 BY THE SAID CIRCULAR THAT THE REPORT OF AU DIT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT IS NOT TO BE ATTACHED WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME AND IS NEITHER TO BE FURNISHED SEPARATELY BE FORE OR AFTER THE DUE DATE. HOWEVER, AN ASSESSEE IS TO G ET THE REPORT OF AUDIT FROM AN ACCOUNTANT UNDER THE SAID SECTION BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETUR N AND TO FILL OUT ALL THE RELEVANT COLUMNS OF THESE FORM S ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REPORT. IN CASE AUDIT REPORT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED BEFORE THE DUE DATE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 271B SHALL BE ATTRACTED. ANOTHER CIRCULAR NO.3/200 7 DATED 25.5.2007 WAS ISSUED BY THE CBDT UNDER WHICH IT AMENDED THE INCOME TAX RULES I.E. SUBSTITUTING RULE 12 BY A NEW RULE 12 AND NOTIFYING NEW RETURN FORMS FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SUB-RULE (3) OF THE NEW R ULE 12, PROVIDED THAT A FIRM TO WHOM PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 44AB ARE APPLICABLE, WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME/FRINGE BENEFITS IN FORM ITR-5 AND/OR COMP ANY WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME/FRINGE BENEFITS IN FORM ITR-6, SHALL FURNISH THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MANNERS: 7 (I) FURNISHING THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY UNDER DIGI TAL SIGNATURE; OR (II) FURNISHING THE DATE IN THE RETURN ELECTRONICAL LY AND THEREAFTER SUBMITTING THE VERIFICATION OF THE RETUR N IN FORM ITR-V. 10. VIDE THE SAID CIRCULAR IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY IN ANY OF THE MANNER MENTIONED ABOVE, THE NECESSARY SOFTWARE IS NOT YET READY. THE LAST DATE FOR FILING RETURNS FOR THE AB OVE CATEGORIES OF ASESSEES WAS 31.10.2007. THE CBDT ALLOWED CERTAIN COMPANIES WHO WANTED TO FILE THEIR APPLICATIONS IN THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BEFORE 31.5.2007 TO FURNISH THE SAME MANUALLY IN PAPER FOR M WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD SUPPLEMENT THE R ETURN BY E-FILING WHEN THE SOFTWARE IS READY. 11. THE SYSTEM OF E-FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS INTRODUCED FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 FOR CORPORA TES TAX PAYERS AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 FOR BOT H THE COMPANIES AND THE FIRMS TO WHOM PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB ARE APPLICABLE. AS REFERRED TO BY US UNDER PARAS HEREINABOVE THE PARTICULARS OF THE AUDIT OBTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILING OF RETU RN OF INCOME ARE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE NEW RETURN FOR M. THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED TOTAL SALE OF RS.3.02 CRORES AND AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPULSORILY REQUIRED TO E-FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH WAS THE FIRST Y EAR OF E-FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BY FIRMS TO WHOM T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB WERE APPLICABLE I.E. THE FIRMS HAVING TURNOVER OF MORE THAN RS.40 LACS FOR THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TO FURNISH THE AUDIT REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PO INTED OUT ANY DEFAULT IN FURNISHING OF THE AUDIT REPORT U /S 44AB OF THE ACT. NO REFERENCE IS MADE TO NON-FULFI LLMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF TH E ACT BY NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF THE AUDIT REPORT. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD REVIS ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD CORRECTED THE ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME UNDER WHICH THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER-VIA IS REFLECTED AT NIL AND T HE TOTAL INCOME IS REFLECTED AT RS.31,43,965/- AND TAX PAYABLE AT NIL. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E THE 8 CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE E- RETURN FORM FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF SYSTEM S ERROR, THOUGH TAX PAYABLE IS REFLECTED AT NIL, WHIC H WOULD BE SO WHEN THE TOTAL INCOME AFTER DEDUCTIONS IS NIL. WHERE, ON THE FILING OF THE REVISED RETURN TH E SAID ERROR WAS CORRECTED, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE NOT FULFILLED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IN FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME PRESCRIBED U/S 139( 1) OF THE ACT, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THIS WAS FIRST YEAR O F E- FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM OF DED UCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH THE SIMI LAR CLAIM BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEA R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD E-FILED RETU RN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2011 WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. COPY OF THE SAID RETURN IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 1 TO 22 OF THE ASSESSEES CO MPILATION. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REF LECTED IN THE E-RETURN DUE TO TECHNICAL ERROR WHILE UPLOADING THE RETURN AND THE MISTAKE WAS RECTIFIED AS SOON AS IT WAS DETECTED. ACCORDING TO HIM SINCE THE RETU RN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT WAS IN TIME, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRA CTED IN THIS CASE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. SH. THE MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FORM 10CCB WAS RE ADY ON 29.8.2011. COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 64 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK COMPILATION. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT THE TOTAL INCOME 9 DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT IS SAME AS THAT SHOWN IN THE REVISED RETURN . SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM WHEN DE DUCTION IS BEING CLAIMED IS 2006-07 AND DATE OF INITIATION OF OPERATION / ACTIV ITY BY THE UNDERTAKING IS 10.8.2005. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ELECON PACKPET, SOLAN V ITO PARWANOO (SUPRA), WE A LLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO THE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM OF DED UCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH THE SIMILAR CLAIM BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EAR LIER YEARS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE TERMS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY AND PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.12.2015 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR