M/s Electra Bell, Parwanoo v. Pr. CIT, Shimla

ITA 855/CHANDI/2019 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 85521514 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AADFE7354C
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 855/CHANDI/2019
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant M/s Electra Bell, Parwanoo
Respondent Pr. CIT, Shimla
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 20-11-2019
Date Of Final Hearing 11-11-2019
Next Hearing Date 11-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 11-11-2019
First Hearing Date 23-09-2019
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 27-05-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BE NCH A CHANDIGARH .. !' '# $ % &' BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI VP & SHRI SANJAY GARG J M ./ ITA NO. 855/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S ELECTRA BELL NEAR GATI CARGO KASAULI ROAD PARWANOO (H.P.) PR. CIT SHIMLA ./ PAN NO: AADFE7354C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN ADVOCATE SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH ADVOCATE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI CHARANJIT SINGH CIT(DR) $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 11/11/2019 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/11/2019 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 26/03/2019 OF LD. PR. CIT SHIMLA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT ORDER DATED 26.3.2019 U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY LE ARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT SATISFY ING THE STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT AND IS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 2. THAT THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATI ON OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AND AFTER MAKING ALL POSSIBLE ENQUIRIES HAD ACCEPTE D CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THEN SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REGARDED A S ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MERELY BECAU SE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION AND THAT TOO WITHOUT HAVING ESTABLISHED IN ANY MANNER THAT VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE VIEW. 2 3. THAT THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AN ORDER OF AS SESSMENT CANNOT BE SET-ASIDE TO SIMPLY TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND THEREAFTER PASS FRESH ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND AS SUCH IMPUGNED ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE. 4. THAT FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF THE LEARNED PR. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THAT 'THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-ASSESS OR RE-COMP UTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BY CONDU CTING FURTHER INQUIRIES AS NECESSITATED FOR ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE' IS ILLEGAL INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 5. THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THAT THE 'ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2012-13 WAS PASSED BY THE AO IN HASTE WITHOUT CONDUCTING DUE ENQUIRIES AS WELL AS WITHOUT MAKING PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OTHE RWISE TO FACTUALLY INCORRECT LEGALLY MISCONCEIVED AND UNTENABLE APART FROM BEIN G MANIFESTLY MISCONCEIVED. 6. THAT THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS EVEN OTHERWISE TO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE INSTA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE NOT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ONCE SU CH RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 STOOD ACCEPTED AS SUCH NO ADVERSE FIND ING COULD BE RECORDED VALIDLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND AS SUCH THE ENTIRE ACTION IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND HENCE UNTENABLE. 7. THAT VARIOUS ADVERSE FINDINGS ARE FACTUALLY INCORRE CT CONTRARY TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORDS LEGALLY MISCONCEIVED VAGUE A RBITRARY AND THUS UNTENABLE. 8. THAT THE AUTHORITY BELOW HAVE FRAMED THE IMPUGNED O RDER WITHOUT GRANTING SUFFICIENT PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPEL LANT AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND H ENCE VITIATED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS IT IS GATHERED THAT ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ACTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT'). 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 08/10/2014 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME AT NIL LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30/11/2016 UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. OBSERVED IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING DATA CARD USED IN INVERTE RS AS WELL AS UPS AND FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR CLAIM OF D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC 3 OF THE ACT WHICH HAD BEEN EXAMINED AND TAKEN ON RE CORD. THEREAFTER THE LD. PR. CIT SHIMLA EXERCISED HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT ON THE PROPOSAL OF DCIT PARWANOO AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS UNDER: 'THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TA X ACT 1961 IS AVAILABLE TO AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE '... WHICH HAS BEGUN OR B EGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE. '. THUS YOUR ENGAGEMENT IN MANUFACTURING IS THE FOREMOST PRE- CONDITION WHICH MUST BE FULFILLED BEFORE AN ASSES SEE BECOMES ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HOWEVER COULD NOT PROVE THAT IT HAD ACTUAL STARTED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES TILL 31.03.2012 (I.E. BEFORE 01 04.2012) AND THEREF ORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX AD 1 961 FOR THE A. Y. 2012-13 OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT Y EARS. ACCORDINGLY YOUR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2015- 16 WAS DISALLOWED AND THE SAME WAS ADDED BACK TO YOUR TOTAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U /S 143(3) DATED 30.11.2016 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2) NE W DELHI APPARENTLY SEEMS TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE SAME IS LIAB LE TO BE SET ASIDE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61. HOWEVER BEFORE TAKING ANY SUCH ACTION YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ATTEND MY OFFICE AT RAILWAY BOARD BUILDING SHIMLA ON 20.03.2 019 AT 11.30 AM. IN CASE YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL THE SAID OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SEND A WRITTEN S UBMISSION SO AS TO REACH THIS OFFICE ON OR BEFORE 20.03.2019 WHICH SHALL BE CONSI DERED BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER U/S 263. IN CASE OF FAILURE THE CASE WILL BE DECIDED ON MERITS AND FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 23/10/2017 OF THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-1 6 WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT. THEREFORE THE MECHANICAL ADOPTION OF THE SAID ORDER TO HOLD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTE D ON 09/03/2012 AND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THE THIRD YEAR OF ITS EXIST ENCE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS NEITHER ERR ONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND IT WAS ALSO NOT A C ASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY OR LACK OF INVESTIGATION ON THE PART OF THE A.O. IT WAS FUR THER STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. IN 4 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON MERIT OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE LD. PR . CIT AS UNDER: S.NO. OBSERVATION IN THE NOTICE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE I) AS PER REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB YOUR FIRM STARTED MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES ON 09.03.2012 I.E. F.Y. 2011-12 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2012-13. IF THE YOUR CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED THAT IT HAD STARTED ITS ACTIVITY DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12 THEN AS ON 09.03.2012 THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GOT NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE AGENCY OF GOVT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. AS FAR AS GRANT OF APPROVAL BY THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE AGENCY OF GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IS CONCERNED IT WAS GRANTED ON 31.03.2012 ONLY. SINCE YOUR FIRM HAD NO APPROVAL TO START MAN6FACTURING ACTIVITIES AS ON 09.03.2012 THE DATE GIVEN IN REPORT IN FORM NO 10CCD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS BACKGROUND THIS DATE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. I) THE UNIT GOT CERTIFICATE FROM DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES ON 30.3.2010 FOR MANUFACTURING OF HOME UPS THE ADDITIONAL PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS INSTALLED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND PRODUCED COMMENCED ON 27.3.2012 ON WHICH ENDORSEMENT WAS DONE BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES ON 31.3.2012 FOR THE ADDITION IN PLANT 66 MACHINERY FOR RS. 4 62 140/- II) FURTHER ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE FROM DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SUNSET CLAUSE I.E 1ST APRIL 2012 IS OF GREAT RELEVANCE AS IT IS GRANTED TO A UNIT THAT IS IN OPERATION AFTER PHYSICAL INSPECTION CARRIED BY THE OFFICIAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES. III) HENCE ONLY AFTER SATISFACTORY INSPECTION THAT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS BEING CARRIED ON CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN GRANTED. IV) FURTHER IT IS NO WHERE MENTIONED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 801C OF THE ACT THAT APPROVAL OF SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE AGENCY IS MANDATORY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER THE RELEVANT SECTION. THEREFORE THE VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ALLEGATION THAT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAS NOT BEEN STARTED IN AY 2012-13 IS MISCONCEIVED MISPLACED AND UNTENABLE. II) AS PER YOUR REPLY DATED 05.10.2017 FURNISHED TO THE A.O. YOU HAVE MADE NECESSARY PURCHASES OF MATERIAL ONLY ON 26.03.2012 AND 27.03.2012 FROM DELHI. THUS THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF STARTING PRODUCTION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL (RAW MATERIAL) TO BE USED IN PRODUCTION BY YOUR FIRM. FOR THIS REASON ALSO YOUR CLAIM OF STARTING MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AS ON 09.03.2012 AS REPORTED IN REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 5 THE EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH GOVT HAD GRANTED CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ON 27.03.2012 ONLY. IT ALSO PROVES THAT YOUR CLAIM OF STARTING MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AS ON 09.03.2012 AS REPORTED IN FORM NO. 10CCB IS NOT CORRECT. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT IS THAT MANUFACTURING FACILITY HAS TO START BEFORE 1ST APRIL 2012. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS STARTED MANUFACTURING FACILITY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SUNSET CLAUSE SINCE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO UNIWORK ELECTRONIKS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 27 500/- ON 31.3.2012. FURTHER CERTIFICATE FROM SINGLE CLEARING AGENCY OF GOVT AS WELL AS CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WITH EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SUBSTANTIATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING FACILITY BEFORE 1 ST APRIL 2012. MERELY BECAUSE THE DATE MENTIONED IN THE FORM 10CCB IS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PURCHASES AND CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT ON DATED 27.8.2012 IT WILL NOT PRECLUDE THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING TAX HOLIDAY U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE PARTY M/S UNIWORK ELECTRONIC FROM WHOM YOUR FIRM HAD MADE PURCHASES AND ALSO IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE ONLY SALE INVOICE DATED 31.03.2012 WAS ISSUED DOES NOT EXIST AT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE REPORTED GIVEN ADDRESS. THE POSTAL REMARKS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH FIRM AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS OF THE PARTY. THE OTHER PARTY NAMELY M/S J.J. ELECTRONICS HAS ALSO NOT RESPONDED TO THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 6.10.2017 CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE/SALE STANDS DISCHARGED BY THE INVOICES OF BOTH SALES AND PURCHASES. THE DATE OF PAYMENT IS 28.3.2013 RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF PURCHASE/SALES AND IN ANY CASE SO THE SAME IS OF CONSEQUENCE: I) THAT GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM INDEPENDENT VERIFIABLE PARTIES; II) THAT GOODS HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED BY A LEADING NATIONAL ROAD TRANSPORT COURIER I.E. III) THAT CONSIGNMENT NOTE/ INVOICES CERTIFIED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AT THE CHECK POST IV) THAT GOODS HAVE BEEN DULY DELIVERED AT THE FACTORY PREMISES V) THAT NONE OF THE PARTY HAVE DENIED THE TRANSACTIONS. MERE FACT THAT CREDITORS HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISPUTE HE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. IT IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE THE ALLEGATION THAT THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES IS ALSO BASED ON MISCONCEPTION. FURTHER PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES AND RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR SALE IS NO BAR IN SECTION 801C TO DENY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 IT WAS PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO START PRODUCTION ON 31.03.2012 I.E. AFTER ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE APPROVED BY THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE AGENCY OF THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH COMPLETE THE ENTIRE PRODUCTION PROCESS ON 31.03.2012 MAKE NECESSARY PACKAGING OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED DISPATCH AND DELIVER IT TO THE TRANSPORTER ON THE SAME DATE I.E. ON 31.03.2012. I) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THAT THE APPROVAL BY THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARING AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH WAS OBTAINED ON 31.3.2012 IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY ON 31.3.2012. THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY WAS STARTED ON 27.3.2012 AND THE APPROVAL OF AFOREMENTIONED AGENCY HAS BEEN GRANTED ONLY AFTER PROPER PHYSICAL INSPECTION AND ON SATISFACTION THAT THE UNIT IS IN OPERATION. II) FURTHER IT IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 5.7 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED INFORMATION INCHARGE/ETO CONCERNED REGARDING TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIAL/ MACHINERY THAT THE GOODS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.3.2012 AND NOT ON 31.3.2012. III) THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PRODUCTION WAS STARTED ONLY ON 31.3.2012 IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. MOREOVER THE SALES BILTY WHICH SUBSTANTIATES THAT THE DISPATCH OF THE FINAL GOODS FROM THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE ON 31.3.2012 HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 801C OF THE ACT. YOU HAVE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE WAGES/SALARY REGISTER MAINTAINED FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EVEN IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON 05.10.2017. YOU HAVE ALSO CLAIMED PAYMENT OF SALARY OF RS. 19 345/- FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2012. HOWEVER; NO PAYMENT WAS MADE TILL 31.03.2017. NO SALARY REGISTER WAS PRODUCED. THUS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITY AS CLAIMED. FURTHER YOU HAVE DEBITED RS. 9553/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENT. HOWEVER NO PAYMENT WAS MADE TILL 31.03.2012. ALSO NO RENT AGREEMENT WAS PRODUCED BY YOU BEFORE THE A.O. YOU HAVE ALSO DEBITED- ELECTRICITY PAYMENT OF RS. 4 325/- . HOWEVER NO PAYMENT WAS MADE TILL 31.03.2012 FURTHER AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE F.Y. 2011-12 NO CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE FROM I) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19 345/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYABLE OF 5 EMPLOYEES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2012. THE SAID SUM HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH I.E. APRIL 2012. II) THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A RENT AGREEMENT WITH SMT. SUSHMA SHARMA. THE RENT RECEIPT PROVES THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RENT OF RS. 54000 THROUGH CHEQUE DATED 17.10.2012 FROM MARCH TO AUGUST 2012. THE SAME CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT. SIMILARLY PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 345/- THROUGH CHEQUE DATED 21.4.2012 CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT. III) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO WITHDRAW CASH BETWEEN 26.3.2012 AND 31.3.2012 AS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CASH WITH THE 7 26.03.2012 TO 31.03.2012. SINCE NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED THE GENUINENESS IS NOT ESTABLISHED AS THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. ASSESSEE. THE SAME CAN BE EVIDENCED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THAT THERE HAD BEEN WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 60 000/- AND RS. 10 000- ON 9.3.2012 AND 22.3.2012 RESPECTIVELY. HENCE THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE BOGUS IS ERRONEOUS AND MISCONCEIVED. YOU HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED BILL OF RS. 4 63 352/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF MACHINERY BUT ALSO HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS INSTALLATION OF ABOVE MACHINERY BEFORE 31.03.2012. I) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE MACHINES USED IN THE PRODUCTION DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INSTALLATION BECAUSE ALL THE MACHINERY ARE MOVABLE. THEREFORE NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. II) FURTHER MACHINES WERE USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF FINAL GOODS CAN BE WITNESSED FROM THE FACT OF APPROVAL BY SINGLE CLEARANCE AGENCY WINDOW OF GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AS THE CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ENDORSED ONLY AFTER THE SAME HAS BEEN IN OPERATION THE FIRM HAS ALSO MADE SALES OF RS. 1 27 500/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER NO PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED TILL 31.03.2012. THE FIRM'S CLAIM IN REPLY DATED 06.10.2017 THAT THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AGAINST WS UNIWORK ELECTRONIKS AS ON 31.03.2012 WAS RS. 97 257/- IS ONLY TO ONE SIDED ACCOUNTING TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RELATING TO SO CALLED PURCHASE AND SALES TRANSACTION WITH THE SAID PARTY. FURTHER THE FIRM HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENT FROM THE SAID PARTY ON 28.03.2013 AFTER ELAPSE OF PERIOD OF ABOUT ONE YEAR. THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT AFTER ABOUT YEAR IS ALSO NOT A GENERAL TRADING PRACTICE....' THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 801C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS AVAILABLE TO AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE '... WHICH HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE....'. THUS YOUR ENGAGEMENT IN MANUFACTURING IS THE FOREMOST PRE- CONDITION WHICH MUST BE FULFILLED BEFORE AN ASSESSEE BECOMES ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 8010 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HOWEVER COULD NOT PROVE THAT IT REPLY TO PARA 13 BELOW OF THIS REPLY 8 HAD ACTUAL STARTED I T S M AN UF AC T URI N G ACTIVITIES TILL 31.03.2012 {I.E. BEFORE 01.04.2012} I AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 8010 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT Y EARS. ACCORDINGLY YOUR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 801C THE DEDUCTION OF 'WAS DISALLOWED AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO YOUR INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 6. THE LD. PR. CIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI NIKHIL NATH UPTO 08/03/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVI NG THE SAME NAME WAS CONSTITUTED ON 09/03/2012 HAVING TWO PARTNERS I.E; SHRI SANJAY AGGARWAL WITH 98% OF SHARES AND SHRI NIKHIL NATH WITH 2% OF THE S HARES. THE LD. PR. CIT POINTED OUT THAT FOLLOWING NEW FACTS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD : I) AS PER AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB THE ASSESSEE STARTED MANUFACTURING W.E.F. 09.03.2012 HOWEVER AS AGAINST THE SAME THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE AGENCY OF GOVT OF HP HAS GRANTED THE APPROVAL TO T HE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 31.03.2012; II) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 05.10.2017SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO T HAT IT HAS MADE NECESSARY PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIAL FOR MANUFACTURING ON 26.0 3.2012 AND 27.03.2012 FROM CERTAIN DELHI PARTIES THEREFORE IT WAS PROVED THAT IN SUCH AN EVENTUALITY IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO START PRODUCTION ( 09.03.2012) PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL; III) AS AGAINST THE DATE OF MANUFACTURING OF 09.03. 2012 MENTIONED IN THE FORM 10CCB THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS CONDUCTING ENQUIRES HAVE NOTICED THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF REGIS TRATION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE STATE EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMEN T ONLY ON 27.03.2012; IV) THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ENQ UIRES MADE HAS FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HAVING MADE PURCHASE OF RAW MA TERIAL FROM TWO DELHI BASED PARTIES NAMELY UNIWORK ELECTRONIC AND JJ ELEC TRONICS. IN THE CASE OF UNIWORK ELECTRONIC THE SALE INVOICE OF PURCHASE BIL L IS DATED 31.03.2012 AND FURTHER ON INQUIRY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID PARTY DID NOT EXIST AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. REGARDING M/S J J ELECTRONICS THE INQUIRY LETTER I SSUED CALLING FOR INFORMATION BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT REMAINED UN-RESPONDED; V) SINCE THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE AGENCY OF THE STALE GOVERNMENT AND THE ALLEGED RAW MATERIAL PURCHASE BILL FROM M/S UNIWORK ELECTRONIC DELHI ARE DATED 31.03.2012 THEREFORE THE AO HAS HELD THAT I T WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO START ITS MANUFACTURING ON 31.03.2012 I TSELF; VI) INSPITE OF HAVING BEEN ISSUED SPECIFIC SUMMON U /S 131OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE WAGES/SALARY REG ISTER FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. 9 SECONDLY THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN T / INQUIRIES CONDUCTED HAS FOUND THAT NO PAYMENT OF SALARY/WAGES WAS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE TILL 31.03.2017 FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING AS ON 31.03 .2012. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED /CLAIMED EXPENSES O N ACCOUNT OF RENT OF RS. 9 553/- AND ELECTRICITY OF RS. 4 325/- FOR THE YEAR ENDED AS ON 31.03.2012 BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE ANY DETAILS NOR ANY EVIDENCES OF HAVING PAID SUCH EXPENSES. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT AS PER THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 NO CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE DURI NG THE PERIOD 26.03.2012 TO 31.03.2012. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AG AINST SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RE MAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED; VII) THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BILL OF RS. 4 63 352/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF MACHINERY BUT NO DETAILS AND EVIDENCE REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF SAID MACHINERY BEFORE 31.03.2012 WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE; AND VIII) THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SALES OF RS. 1 27 50 0/- HAVING MADE DURING THE YEAR ENDED AS ON 31.03.2012 HOWEVER NO PAYMENT AG AINST THE SAME WAS FOUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL 31.03.2012. IT WAS FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE ENTIRE SALES HAVING MADE TO M/S UNIWORK ELECTRONICS NEW DELHI AND THE PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 97 257/- IS CLAIME D ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL MADE FROM THE SAID PARTY A S DISCUSSED ABOVE ALTHOUGH THE WHEREABOUTS AND EXISTENCE OF THE SAID PARTY IS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 THE LD. PR. CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 9. THEREFORE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE SPECIFIC FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO AFTER CONDUCTING DETAILED INQUIRY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 WHICH SIRE FOUND FULLY RELEVANT AGAINST ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AS WELL I.E. FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. FROM THE CASE RECORDS MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT IS NOTICED THAT NO SUCH ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ALLOWING T HE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. FROM THESE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD IT IS MORE THAN EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 WAS PASSED BY THE AO IN HASTE WITHOUT CONDUCTING DUE ENQUIRES AS WELL AS WITHOUT MAKING P ROPER VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVE N THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB IS FOUND APPARENTLY WRONG OR INCORRECT INASMU CH AS THE REPORT MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS STARTE D ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY W.E.F. 09.03.2012 IS FOUND APPARENTLY IN CORRECT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS CONSTITUTED ON 09.03.2012 AND E VEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS CLAIMED HAVING MADE FIRST PURCHASE OF RAW MATER IAL ON 26.03.2012 (ALTHOUGH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME IS ALSO FOUND DOUBTFUL). ALL THE NECESSARY GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATES / CLEARANCES ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE START OF BUSINESS WAS NOT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE AS ON 0 9.03.2012 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. FURTHER FROM THE VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 HAS NOTICED VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES/ INFIRMI TIES VIS-A-VIS ITS CLAIM 10 OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. INSPITE THEREOF THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2012-13. ALL THESE FACTS BROUGHT O N RECORD AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AS WELL AS AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE AO FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 IN HASTE AND WITHOUT CONDUCTING DUE EN QUIRES IS IN THE NATURE OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER BECOMING ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE M EANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 6.2 THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE L AWS: I) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (S C) II) GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADDL. CIT CTR 99 ITR 375 ( DEL) III) RAMPYARI DEVI SAROGI VS. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) IV) SMT. TARA DEVI AGGARWAL VS. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC) 6.3 THE LD. PR. CIT ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT NOWHERE STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y 2014-15 WAS EITHER ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE REFERRED TO PARA 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN TH E LD. CIT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE DETAILED ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 WHICH WERE RELEVANT FOR THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND TH AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS IN HASTE WITHOUT CONDUCTING DUE ENQUIRIES AS WELL AS WITHOUT MAKING PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10 CCB WAS WRONG OR INCORRECT AS THE REPORT MENTION ED THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY W.E .F 09/03/2012. 11 8.1 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IC IS AVAILABLE TO A UNIT AND THE OWNERSHIP IS IMMATERIAL. IT WAS FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT DISCUSSED THE FACTS FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 AND NO OBSERVATION WAS GIVEN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND EV EN THE ADVERSE COMMENTS WERE GIVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND NOT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E; 2014-15. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. PR. CIT NOWHERE RECORDED A SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E A.O. WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREFORE THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IT WAS ALSO STA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS REGISTERED WITH INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT FOR MANUFAC TURING THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 468 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK W HICH IS THE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED BY THE INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT REL EVANT FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. IT WAS FUR THER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13 AND THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR LATER ON THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS CHANGED TO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH WAS EARLIER A P ROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. HOWEVER THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MAN UFACTURING ACTIVITY AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF TH E ACT. IT WAS STATED THE A.O. AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION AND APPLICATION OF MIND A LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. W AS JUST ORDER AND THE LD. PR. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE SAME. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE STARTED THE MANUFACTURING FROM 09/03/2012 AND NOT I N THE YEAR 2010. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 MENTIONED BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE THEREFORE THE CONTENTIO N OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTHING WAS MENTIONED FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION I.E; 2014- 12 15 HAS NO FORCE. THE LD. CIT DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATION M ADE THEREIN. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED WITH TH E GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY WHICH IS EVIDENT FR OM THE CERTIFICATE DT. 11/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE SAID DEPARTMENT COPY OF W HICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 462 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION. THE SAID COPY WA S OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN INFORMATION UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005. IN THE SA ID CERTIFICATE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO SET UP MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISE AT TAKSHAL PARWANOO DISTT. SOLAN TO MANUFACTURE UPS AND ENERG Y METERS. THE ASSESSEE STARTED MANUFACTURING BEFORE APRIL 2012 AND ADDED A DDITIONAL MACHINERY FOR MANUFACTURING WORTH RS. 4 62 140/- WHICH IS EVIDEN T FROM THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE RTI ACT F ROM DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 449 & 450 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND EXPANSION HAS TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THEREFORE THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT STARTED MANUFACTURING BEFORE 01/04/2012 PARTICULARLY WHEN T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR ITS CLAIM. MOREOVER IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. PR. CIT MENTIONED THAT THE A.O. CONDUCTED DETAILED ENQU IRY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 FOR CLAI M OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC BUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS PASSED IN HASTE WITHOUT CONDUCTING DUE ENQUIRIES AS WELL AS WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER NOTHI NG IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS DISTURBED. THE LD. PR. CIT SIMPLY STATED THAT THE A.O. ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF TH E ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E; A.Y. 2012-13 THEREFORE THE SAID 13 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE A.Y. 20 12-13 WAS IN HASTE AND WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE ENQUIRIES SO IT BECAME ERRON EOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN T HE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HOWEVER NO SUCH FINDINGS HA S BEEN GIVEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2014-15. 11. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS EACH YEAR IS INDEPENDENT & SEPARATE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY A DVERSE REMARKS GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT THAT NO SUCH ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE A.O. FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2014-15 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE ACT DT. 30/11/2016 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A. Y. 2014-15 AND DIRECTING THE A.O. TO REASSESS OR RECOMPUTE THE INCOME BY CONDUCT ING FURTHER ENQUIRIES PARTICULARLY WHEN THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ASSES SMENT ORDER DT. 30/11/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN EXAMINED AND TAKEN ON RECO RD. NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE SAID OBSERVATION OF THE A.O IS BROUGHT ON RE CORD FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 BY THE LD. PR. CIT WHO SIMPLY DISCUSSED WITH THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE A.Y. 2012-13 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM HIS OBSERVATION IN PARA 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER REPRODUCED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. PR. CIT SIMPLY STATED THAT THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 NOTICED VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES / INFIRM ITIES VIS--VIS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT INSPITE TH EREOF THE A.O. HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2012-13. HOWEVER THE LD. PR. CIT IN P ARA 13 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2014-15 BUT NO OBSERVATION RELATING TO CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT H AS BEEN GIVEN FOR THE SAID A.Y. ON THE CONTRARY THE A.O. PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30/11/2016 BY 14 MENTIONING THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16/06/2 016 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAIL / INFORMATION. HE ALSO STATED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING DATA CARD TO BE USED IN I NVERTERS AS WELL AS UPS AND FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN EXAMINED AND TAKEN ON RECORD. THE A.O AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF AVAILABLE FACTS A ND RECORDS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INC OME. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30/11/2016 PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH DISC USSION FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE ONLY DIS CUSSION WAS RELATING TO THE A.Y. 2012-13. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIF ICATION ON THE PART OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 3 0/11/2016 PASSED BY THE A.O. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/11/2019 ) SD/- SD/- '# $ .. (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 20/11/2019 (+ ! - .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. -23 4 & 4 67839/ DR ITAT CHANDIGARH 6. 38 :%/ GUARD FILE