Acacia Biotech Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that inadvertent mentioning of wrong area in Form 10CCB resulted into denial of claim u/s. 80IC. Thus, clam allowed since it is proved that establishment of assessee exists in eligible area. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Facts- The Assessing Officer has passed order u/s.154 of the Act rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80IC of the Act, on the ground that the unit of the assessee is not located in the eligible physical location as per the notification of the CBDT. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that that the entire confusion arose because of the mistake of the assessee mentioning as Rudrapur instead of Kalyanpur in the form 10CCB. Rudrapur being the Municipal limit, Kalyanpur is the village in the Tehsil Kichha being survey no.373 in village Kalyanpur has been duly notified as an eligible area for claim u/s.80IC of the Act. Since the fact proves that the establishment of the assessee is in the eligible area, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
In this case, the allowability of the deduction primarily beyond the jurisdiction of the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. Further, in spite of the robust evidences filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer chose to act in an unjustifiable manner. The action of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) calls for examination of the records administratively to fix the responsibilities of the officials concerned.
