ATP Business Services (LLP), Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad

CO 18/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3910 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2124/AHD/2013 & C.O. NO.18/AHD/2014 ITO VS. APT BUSINESS SERVICES (LLP) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO.2124/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2), AHMEDABAD. ..................APPELLANT VS. APT BUSINESS SERVICES (LLP), ...........................RESPONDENT 8, ASHIRVAD III, PRAHLADNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD - 380 015. [PAN : AAQFA 4500 R] C.O. NO.18/AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO.2124/AHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 APT BUSINESS SERVICES (LLP), ..................APPELLANT 8, ASHIRVAD III, PRAHLADNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD - 380 015. [PAN : AAQFA 4500 R] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2), AHMEDABAD. ...........................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SAURABH SINGH FOR THE REVENUE S.N. SOPARKAR & PARIN SHAH FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 12.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 17.07.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.2124/AHD/2013 & C.O. NO.18/AHD/2014 ITO VS. APT BUSINESS SERVICES (LLP) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 3 I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION CLAIME D U/S.10B OF THE ACT FOR RS.51,86,678/- WHEN NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TRULY INTERPRETING THE EXPLANATION (IV) BELOW SECTION 10B DEFINING THE HUNDRED PERCENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING AND ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/ S.10B FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE UNDERTAKING WAS NOT REGISTERED BY THE STPI, GANDHINAGAR. III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IV) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCO UNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 2018 DATED 11.07.2 018. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT TH E TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT PRIMA-FACIE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3/2018 IN F.NO. 279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT) DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018, VIDE WHICH IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD THAT NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS SHOULD BE FILED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL IF THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER IS BELOW RS. 20 LACS. THE BOARD HAS PROVIDED EXEMPTIONS AT CLAUSE (10) OF THE INSTR UCTIONS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE APPLIC ABLE, WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT/RULE IS UNDER CHALLENGE OR WHERE BOARDS ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION OR CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR WHERE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT OR WHERE THE ADDITION RELATES TO UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN ASSETS/BANK ACCOUNTS ETC. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE AND THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.20 LACS. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTA INABLE AND HENCE DISMISSED. 4. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE, AS THE APPEAL ITSELF IS HELD TO BE NON-MAINTAINABLE, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CROSS OBJECTION CEASES TO HOLD GOOD IN LAW. THE CROSS OBJECTION IS, THEREFORE, AL SO DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND C ROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT TODAY ON THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018. /- SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMO D KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 PBN/* ITA NO.2124/AHD/2013 & C.O. NO.18/AHD/2014 ITO VS. APT BUSINESS SERVICES (LLP) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD