In this case as found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings had called for the particulars regarding various items of income going into the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, for which the assessee had given the requisite details and particulars. Now the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to hold that the very same items of receipt has to be excluded in computing relief under section 80HHC. In other words, the Assessing Officer, on a reappraisal of the very same details, which was called for by him and furnished by the assessee, would like to come to a different conclusion. This clearly tantamounts to reopening is merely on a change of opinion.
Assessee filed the return of income on 23.12.2008. The due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration in the case of the assessee is 3 1.10.2008. As such the return filed by the assessee is belated. In this the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the return of the assessee was not filed within the time as prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The assessee has given reasons for delay in filing the return of income that the assessee was preparing its accounts through computer and the computer got corrupted due to viruses and in spite of continuous efforts by the computer technical personnel to retrieve the data in time for filing the return of income, problem persisted in the system.
Section 201(1) uses the expression ‘any person, who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of the Act…..’. Assessee’s stand was that there was no such requirement. As per the provisions of section 194C, an amount has to be deducted out of the sum in pursuance to a contract, at the time of payment/credit towards income-tax on the income comprised therein in terms of section 194C. When a particular sum is not income at all for an assessee, the requirement of making TDS is non-existent.
In instant case, the Assessing Officer had proposed to tax the amount as capital gains, as against the assessee’s claim that the same is not taxable. Accordingly, having recorded the fact that the assessee otherwise qualified for such set off, the set off should not have been disallowed on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income. He maintained that the assessee was well within her right to make claims during the assessment proceedings and it does not amount to filing revised computation.
With regard to the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of agricultural income, the only aspect that clinches the nature of the agricultural income is whether agricultural operations were carried out or not. Once it was established that such agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee, assessee was entitled for exemption in respect of such agricultural income under section 10(1) of the Act, irrespective of any violation of the statutory provisions as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the instant case. Such infraction of the statutory provisions may expose the assessee to the risks of being penalized or punished under the relevant statutes, but the same do not change nature of the agricultural income, and as such, cannot be fatal to the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act.
The next issue for our adjudication is whether sufficient reasons exist for curing defect after expiry of limitation provided under Section 249(2) of the Act. Since, we have held in the upper part of the order that appeal filed in violation of Section 249(4) would be termed as a defective one and the moment defect is cured then those can be disposed of on merit subject to limitation.
One has to examine the stages through which the mash feed is converted into pellet feed. In deciding the issue whether there had been any manufacture of pellet feed. It was to be held that there had been only processing while the production of pellet feed was done by following various stages, namely, (i) batch weighing, (ii) grinding, (iii) mixing, (iv) conditioning with steam, (v) pelleting, (vi) cooling, (vii) crumbling and, finally (viii) packing. The difference between the pellet feed and mash feed, is difference in the quality of the feed and did not throw any light on the manufacture and is of no significance while discussing whether there is manufacture for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-IB.
The Tribunal placed reliance on the Chennai Tribunal ruling in the case of Tweezerman (India) Private Limited v. Addl. CIT, [2010] 4 ITR (Trib.) 130 (Chennai) which ruled that provisions of Section 80-IA(10) of the Act do not give an arbitrary power to the AO to determine the profits of the taxpayer. It is incumbent on the AO to show how ordinary profits were computed based on similar comparable case. The phrase ‘more than ordinary profits’ referred in Section 80-IA(10) of the Act is different from ‘ALP’.
The stand of the revenue with regard to semi-finished condition of the flat is devoid of merit in as much as what is sought to be constructed and sold by the assessee is a residential unit and what is sought to be purchased by the individual buyer is the ownership of a residential unit,
However, it is to be made clear that if no material was found during the search which could show suppression of income, no estimation of undisclosed income of block period by resorting to section 145 could be made. In other words, where there is a material, such an estimation of income can be made. It is not necessary that addition should be limited to what is found during the search.
