The ACIT, Circle-4,, Baroda v. M/s. Zest Aromas Pvt. Ltd.,, Baroda

ITA 1878/AHD/2014 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 187820514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAACZ0601M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1878/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-4,, Baroda
Respondent M/s. Zest Aromas Pvt. Ltd.,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 28-06-2017
Next Hearing Date 28-06-2017
First Hearing Date 28-06-2017
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 20-06-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ACIT CIRCLE - 4 BARODA (APPELLANT) VS M/S. ZEST AROMAS PVT. LTD. 230 AKASHGANGA NEAR VANIJYA BHAWAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA - 07 PAN: AAACZ0601M (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI MUDIT NAGPAL SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI TUSHAR HEMANI A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20 - 11 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 11 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS REVE NUE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 AR ISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - III BARODA DATED 27 - 03 - 2014 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 1878 / A HD/20 14 A SSESSME NT YEAR 200 6 - 07 I.T.A NO. 1878 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. ZEST AROMAS PVT. LTD 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IB OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOUND OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U /S 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF FORM NO. 10CCB DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING - OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAD MERELY STATED THE OBSERVATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT AND NOT ADMITTED ON MERIT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FINALIZED VIDE ORDER DATED 22 ND DECEMBER 2008 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1 75 9 4 778/ - . THE AFORESAID ORDER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT - 2 BAR ODA VIDE HIS ORDER U/S. 263 DATED 25 TH MARCH 2011 ON THE REASONOING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM NO. 10CCB FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASON T HE CIT - 2 BARODA VIDE ORDER U/S. 263 HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED U/S. 143(3) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AD PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE . THE ITAT HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S. 263 DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ISSUED FOLLOWING DIRE CTIONS: - 'IT IS DEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE AUDIT REPORT WAS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE IT IS DEMANDED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AO DEMANDED THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE DECIDING T HE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80/8 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 80IA(7) READ WITH SECTION 80IB(13) AND RULE 18IB(13) AND RULE 18BBB NO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WILL BE ADMISSIBLE UNLESS THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT AND THE REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT IN PRESCRIBED FORM DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT IS FURNISHED. SINCE IN THIS CASE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO ADMITTEDLY WITHOUT SUCH REPORT WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE LEARNED CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE INVOCAT ION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED CIT CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTING THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT IS HEREBY UPHELD. BEFORE WE DEPART IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT SINCE THE AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT DURING 263 CIT DURING 263 PROCEEDINGS AND HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT I.T.A NO. 1878 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. ZEST AROMAS PVT. LTD 3 WILL EXAMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION T HE AUDIT REPORT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT. THIS VIEW OF OURS GET SUPPORT FROM T.HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THE CASE OF ZENITH PROCESSOR (219 IR 721) WHEREIN THE AUDIT REPORT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF 253 PROCEEDINGS WAS HELD TO VALID.' ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT FILED ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT THEREFORE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOW ED. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 5 TH DECEMBER 2011 AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS DIRECTED THAT ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ATER TAKING I NTO CONSIDERATION THE AUDIT REPORT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT . THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABLE OF DEDUCTION ON MERIT AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE REPORT ON FORM NO. 10CCB DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REPORT ED ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSE E U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT IN THE REMAND REPORT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND I.T.A NO. 1878 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. ZEST AROMAS PVT. LTD 4 ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 27 - 11 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 27 /11 /2017 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ /