ACIT Non Corporate Circle 15, CHENNAI V. Pleasant Health Care, CHENNAI

ITA 1169/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3793 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 10B; 148; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI , , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2009-10 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-15, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. PLEASANT HEALTH CARE, 15/15A 3 RD CROSS STREET, NEHRU NAGAR, KOTTIVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 041. [PAN: AAHFP 5277H] ( /APPELLANT) ( &'( /RESPONDENT) ( / APPELLANT BY : MR. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE &'( /RESPONDENT BY : MR. ARV SREENIVASAN, ADDL. CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 06.10.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.10.2021 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-15, CHENNAI IN I.T.A NOS.330 & 329/2016-17/CIT(A)-15 DA TED 27.08.2018 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 155 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEA L IN ITA NO.1320/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND D ELAY OF 147 DAYS IN ITA NO.1169/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010-11 RESPECTIVELY, FOR WHICH, THE REVENUE FILED A PETITI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-15 (1), CHENNAI IS DIRECTED TO FIL E AN APPEAL TO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-15, CHENNAI IN ITA NO 330&329/CIT(A)-16-17 DATED 27/08/2018 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10 RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 27/08/2018 IN TH E CASE OF M/S PLEASANT HEALTH CARE PAN AAHFP5277H. I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 155 DA YS IN FILING THE INCOME TAX APPEAL PAPERS, IN THE ABOVE CASE, FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME AS CIT(A)'S ORDER WAS COMBINED FOR THE A.YS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11.SO, WE WRONGLY FILED COMBINED APPEAL FOR THE BOTH A.YS, 2009-10 AN D 2010-11. I HUMBLY REQUEST AGAIN THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED . THE DELAY WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE UNDER SIGNE D AND NOT AN INTENTIONAL ONE, HENCE IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE H ON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL THAT THE DELAY MAY KINDLY BE CON DONED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED. IT IS HUMBLY AGAIN PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND RENDER THE JUSTICE OF THE APP ELLANT 3. THE LD. D.R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND THE ORDER MAY BE PASSED ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PETITIONS FOR CONDONATI ON FILED BY THE REVENUE AND FIND THAT THE REVENUE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: THERE IS A DELAY OF 155 DAYS FOR A.Y 2009-10 AND 14 7 DAYS FOR A.Y 2010-11 IN FILING OF THE APPEALS STAND CONDONED AND THE APPEALS ARE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 6. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY T O THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD, CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT AFTER ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE, WHIC H WAS ADMITTED WITHOUT GRANTING THE AO ANY OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE IT. 2.1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ALTERNA TE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S 10A, BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SEVERN GLOCON (INDIA) PVT. LTD . FOR AY 2010-11 VIDE ORDER NO.2816/MDS/2014 DATED 19-06-2015, WHEN THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD THEN ONLY REM ITTED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S 10B. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE AD DUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C LT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE CLAIM PROCESSING, FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S . 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER AS THE ACT). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ON 07.10.2011 THE ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ACCEPTING RETUR N OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE AN APPROVAL GRANTED BY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 2 8.12.2016. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O HAS NOTED AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE ES/ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORDS AND F OUND THAT THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT- 1961 AT THE TIME OF COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE IT A CT-1961 ON 12/02/2013. AND IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT HAVE THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, .SPEC IAL ECONOMIC ZONE. SECTION 10B OF THE IT ACT-1961 IS REPRODUCE D BELOW:- '[SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF NEWLY ESTABLISHE D HUNDRED PER CENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKINGS.] 10B.(1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ,O DEDUC TION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY A HUNDRED PER C ENT EXPORT - ORIENTED UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS Y EAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICL ES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE ALL OWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE: PROVIDED THAT WHERE IN COMPUTIBNG THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, ITS PROFITS AN D GAINS HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED BY APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF T HIS SECTION AS IT STOOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ITS SUBSTITUTION BY THE FI NANCE ACT-2000, THE UNDERTAKING SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB SECTION ONLY FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF AFORES AID TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT FEAR:' IN RESPONSE TO 148 NOTICE, ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTI ON U/S 10A OF THE IT ACT-1961 INSTEAD OF 10B OF THE IT ACT-1961. THIS CLEARLY LOOKS LIKE AN AFTERTHOUGHT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIC E U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT-1961. ASSESSEE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CLAIM O F EXEMPTION SOMEHOW U/S 10A WHEREAS ALL ALONG HE HAD BEEN CLAIM ING EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT-1961. ASSESSEE/ AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED PROOFS/ DOCUMENTS TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT-1961 AND ALSO EVEN FOR EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10A OF THE IT ACT : 1961. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT IS I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 5 -: COMPLETED BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE U/S. 10B OF THE IT ACT: 8. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER LD. CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATION, OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS MENTIONED ABOVE UNDER PARA 5.1 AND THE APP ELLANT'S SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) UNDER PARA 5.2. 5.3.1. THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE AYS, 2 009-10 AND 2010-11, IS THE AO'S DENIAL OF THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 1QB AND 10A. INITIALLY, THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED U/S 10B O F THE IT ACT. BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HA VE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL ECONOMIC Z ONE, THE AO DENIED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B. ALTHOUGH, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10A DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE AO REJECTED ITS CLAIM WITH AN OBSERVATION THAT IT WAS AN AFTER THOUGHT AND CORRESPONDING DETAILS WERE NOT FILED. 5.3.2. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE APPELLANT'S AR H AS REITERATED THE APPELLANT'S MAIN PLEA OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B. HO WEVER, THE AR HAS ADMITTED THAT THE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT A UTHORITY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10 IS STILL PENDING. THEREFORE, I A M CONVINCED THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 1 0B. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTS MAIN PLEA OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B IS REJE CTED. 5.3.3. NOW, COMING TO THE APPELLANT'S .ALTERNATE P LEA THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A, I HAVE PERUSED THE FOLL OWING PARTICULARS FILED BY THE APPELLANT'S AR TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ALL THE STA TUTORY CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 10A WERE FULFILLED. (A) DOCUMENT CORRESPONDING TO 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT. (B) STPI APPROVAL. : . (C ) AGREEMENT WITH SETEP (D) STATUTORY FORM NO.SGG. 5.3.4. THE APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS CATEGORIC ALLY STATED THAT ALL THE , ABOVE PARTICULARS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S10A WER E FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN / AFFIDAVIT DATED 22-06-2018 SIGNED BY MR.PA LEPU SRINIVASA PRASAD, PARTNER OF APPELLANT FIRM, BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC , STATING THAT ALL THE ABOVE PARTICULARS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5.3.5. WITH REGARD TO THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT IT S CLAIM OF ALTERNATE PLEA TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10A CAN BE ENTERTAINED, THE APP ELLANT'S AR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI IN THE CAS E OF ACIT VS. SEVERN GLOCON (INDIA) PVT. LTD. IN AY 2010-11 VIDE ITA NO, 2816/MDS/2014 DATED 19-06-2015, I HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE [TAT, CHENNAI IN THE I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 6 -: ABOVE MENTIONED CASE, WHEREIN UNDER PARA -9, THE IT AT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. EXPLANATI ON 2(IV) TO SECTION 10B CLEARLY SAYS THAT APPROVAL BY THE BOARD APPOINTED B Y GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT & R EGULATION) ACT, 1951 IS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION. IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSES CLAIMS THAT THE APPROVAL 1 INITIALLY GRANTED BY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE WAS RATIFIED BY THE BOARD! IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHETHER RATIFICATION WAS AC CORDED BY THE BOARD CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTRIES(DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT, 1951. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT WHETHER THE APPROVAL W AS ACCORDED BY THE BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER INDUSTRIES(DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT, 1951, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW T HAT WHETHER THE APPROVAL WAS ACCORDED BY THE BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER INDUSTR IES (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT, 1951, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED. MOREOVER, SECTION 10A ALSO GIVES EXEMPTION TO 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-E XAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE A ND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK, TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND FIND OUT WHET HER THE BOARD CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT, 1951 HAS APPROVED T HE ASSESSES AS 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT. IN CASE SUCH APPROVAL WA S NOT GRANTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSES UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT ON MERIT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE'. 5.3.6. THE HON'BLE ITAT'S DECISION IN THE ABOVE MEN TIONED CASE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B, ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. ALTHOUGH, ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, THE AO HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE APPELLANT'S ELIGIBILITY TO C LAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10A. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DED UCTION U/S 10A AS IT HAS FULFILLED THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY, TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE I T ACT. THUS, THE APPELLANT'S ALTERNATE PLEA IS ALLOWED IN BOTH AYS 2009-10 AND 2010-11. 9. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 7 -: 10. THE LD. D.R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS ONLY U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AND THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE CON SIDERED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REOPENING PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ALTERNATIVELY U/S. 10A OF THE ACT ALSO AND NOT FILED THE RELEVANT DETAILS. SO FAR AS S. 10B OF TH E ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, ECONOMIC ZONE AND THEREFORE, HE IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. 11. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOU T EXAMINING THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA U/S. 10A OF THE ACT ALLOWED TH E DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CALLING THE REMAND REPORT THER EFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U /S. 10B AS WELL AS S.10A OF THE ACT. IF THE A.O IS OF THE OPINION THA T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT, THE ALT ERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10A OF THE ACT MAY BE CONSIDERED. 13. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE DETAILS, ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR S. 10A OF THE ACT AND GRANT DEDUCTION U/S. I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 8 -: 10A OF THE ACT AND HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S. 10B OF THE ACT ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS CLAIMED THE SAME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED AND THE A.O HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROD UCE A CERTIFICATE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS APPROVED U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATE, THEREFORE, THE A.O HAS DE NIED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. HE AL SO NOTED THAT EVEN FOR EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 10A ALSO NO DOCUMENTS AR E FILED. 15. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED S. 10A OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED THE S TATUTORY CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S. 10A OF THE ACT ARE FULFILLED. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT WHEN TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE A.O AND THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHICH AR E FILED ONLY BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N CALLED THE REMAND REPORT AND THEREAFTER, THE ELIGIBILITY FOR THE ASSE SSEE U/S. 10A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CALLIN G REMAND REPORT AND I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 9 -: WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O A CLAIM WH ICH IS SUBSTANTIATED FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED AND ALL OWED. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT AFRESH, DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 16. EVEN IN ITA NO.1169/CHNY/2019 FOR A.Y 2010-11, THE FACTS AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR THEREFORE, NO SEP ARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.1320/CHN Y/2019 FOR A.Y 2009-10, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO REMIT TH E MATTER BACK TO THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT, AFRESH, DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 08 TH OCTOBER, 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (G. MANJUNATHA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (V. DURGA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED: 08 TH OCTOBER, 2021 . EDN/- I.T.A NOS.1169 & 1320/CHNY/2019 :- 10 -: /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF