Jitendra B. Doshi, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 February, 2008
Against
the said order of the ld. CIT the assessee filed appeal before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal in assessee's appeal in ITA No.5779/M/04 for
Assessment Year 2001-02 dated 4.9.2006 has accepted the assessee's
explanation that he has employed 10 workers and even though
designated in different names at different times, virtually all of them
were working in different aspects of the manufacturing process of the
6 ITA Nos.3403,04,05 & 06 + COs 135 to 138/M/09
A.Y:99-00 , 00-01
assessee. The Tribunal further held that the presumption of the
Commissioner that the consumption of electricity was not sufficient
could be treated only as an observation and not as a material fact on
record so as to discredit the finding of the AO and accordingly set
aside the revision order passed by the ld. CIT. Further in the case of
CIT vs. Jayant Babulal Doshi in Income tax Appeal No.531 of 2009
dated 24.4.2009 Their Lordships on the similar issues have held that
the findings recorded by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of
evidence, consequently, no question of law is involved and dismissed
the appeal in limini. We further find that in the mean time the AO on
the basis of finding recorded u/s.263 of the Act has issued notice u/s.
148 to withdraw the claim of deduction u/s.80 IA/80IB. In the
absence of any compliance by the assessee of the statutory notice
issued u/s.143(2)/142(1) of the Act, the AO estimated the assessee's
income at Rs.15.00 lacs on average basis and did not allow the
assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IA/80IB on the ground that the
nature of business conducted by the assessee is not falling under the
meaning of eligible business as defined under that said provisions. On
appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the adhoc addition and allowed the
deduction u/s.80IA/80IB following the order of the Tribunal in
assessee's own case (supra).