Ita/64/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Cremica Agro Foods Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) -|- IN THERE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ....... Appellant )"*%+% M/s Cremica Agro Foods Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant.for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate andMr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocatefor the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order dated30.4.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (B), in ITA No. 879/CHD/2008, for the assessment year 2005-O6, raising the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal isjustified in law in holding that the proper enquirieswere made by the AO for verification of claim ofdeduction u/s 80IB when the CIT has clearly broughtout in order u/s 263 that the assessee had only filedCA's certificate and has not submitted any otherSupporting documents to support their claim andhence, in the absence of proper enquiry and in the ITA No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) -)- absence of verification of details of fixed assets anddetails of machinery taken on lease, it is not possiblefor the AO to decide if the original value of themachinery taken on lease is less than 20% of the totalmachinery installed in the unit for decidingallowability of claim u/s 80IB? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal isjustified in law in holding that since the issue theproper enquiries were made during the course ofassessment for AY 2003-04 and AY 2O06-07 andthat there is nothing to infer anything adversetherefrom, following the principle of consistency, theorder for the AY 2005-06 cannot be considered aserroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenueignoring the fact the each year is the independentunit of assessment and that principle of res-judicatais not applicable to the assessment proceedings? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that inview of circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, asthe tax effect involved is less than=a20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, Clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not ITA No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legalissue aS Claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 02.05.2016rTeem (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE