PreMedia Global Private Limited, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1089/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 108921714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI JT
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 10B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . . !' , # '$ % [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] ./ I.T.A.NO.1089/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S PREMEDIA GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD. NO.3, FIRST CROSS STREET KASTURBA NAGAR, ADYAR CHENNAI 600 020 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANY WARD V(1) CHENNAI [PAN AADCP 5081 A] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SRIRAM SESHADRI, CA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGIRI, JT.CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 03-02-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-02-2014 '* / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-V CHENNAI, DATED 28.02.2012, PASSED I N APPEAL NO. I.T.A.NO.1089/13 :- 2 -: 352/2010-11, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT EMERGES THAT SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY DISENTITLED IT FROM CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10B AS WELL AS 10A OF THE ACT LEADING TO IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION OF ` 1,10,62,674/-. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY ARGUES THAT THOUGH IT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER BOTH THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND CIT(A) HAVE DECLINED IT THE RELIEF UNDER EITHER OF THEM. ACCORDINGLY, IT PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE REVENUE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIR MING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 4. THE ASSESSEE, A DOMESTIC COMPANY IS A SUBSIDIA RY OF PREMEDIA GLOBA USA INC., A US ENTITY. IT IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES. ON 26.9.2008, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ` NIL AS INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT OF ` 1,10,62,674/-. IT HAD ALSO PAID TAX LIABILITY OF ` 14,56,343/- UNDER THE MAT PROVISIONS. I.T.A.NO.1089/13 :- 3 -: 5. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FOR APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE BOARD CO NSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTR IAL DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT, 1951. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESS EE PRODUCED APPROVAL OBTAINED FROM THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK S OF INDIA (STPI), AS A 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING. WE SEE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.10.2010 THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS, IT HAD ALSO PLACED ON RECORD FORM 56G RELEVANT TO DEDUCTION U/S 10B AS W ELL AS FORM 56F RELEVANT TO DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ASSESSEES EXPLANAT IONS AFORESAID AND HELD IT DISENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER EITHER OF T HE TWO PROVISIONS. COMING TO DEDUCTION U/S 10B, HE HELD THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED THE APPROVAL U/S 14 OF THE INDUSTRIA L DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT, 1951, THE RELIEF IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE GRANTED. REGARDING ALTERNATE PLEA FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVES THAT THE CLAIM HAD NOT BEEN MADE BY FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323. ON THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TURNED DOWN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND MADE THE IMPU GNED ADDITION. I.T.A.NO.1089/13 :- 4 -: 6. THE CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN DECLINING THE AFORESAID RELIEF. 7. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES ONLY ARGUMENT IS THAT U /S 10A, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECLINED THE DEDUCTION IN QUEST ION MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM HAD BEEN RAISED OTHERWISE THA N BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED RETURN BY FOLLOWING THE CASE LAW OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD VS CIT, (SUPRA). PROCEEDING ON THIS QUESTION, WE NOTICE TH AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IS FAIR ENOUGH TO OBSERVE THAT SO FAR AS THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME EITHER U/S 1 0B OR 10A IS CONCERNED, THE PROVISIONS ARE PARA MATERIA AND NO D IFFERENCE OF INCOME ARISES. COMING TO THE CASE LAW, WE FIND THA T THE APEX COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE LAW REGARDING CLAIMING A REL IEF OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF FILING REVISED RETURN DOES NOT IMPINGE UP ON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A PLEA. IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, KEEPING IN MIND THE TRITE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT A BENEFICIAL PROVISION HAS TO BE LIBERALLY INTERPRETED AND ALSO THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT EARLIER ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GRANTED SECTION 10B RELIEF, WE DI RECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCEED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW SO AS TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 10A OF THE ACT. WE CLARIFY T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO GO INTO ALL OTHER DE TAILS REQUIRED IN THE I.T.A.NO.1089/13 :- 5 -: REMAND PROCEEDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ADEQUATELY HEARD. 8. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, 4 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR