M/s. Polaris Financial Technology Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 13/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8382 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURAG SAHAY
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.13/MDS/2013 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S POLARIS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB LIMITED), 244, CAREX CENTRE, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 006. PAN : AAACP 4341 E V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE V(2), CHENNAI. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA FOR DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANURAG SAHAY, CIT 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2016 23( . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.10.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL DATED 09.08.2012 AND PERTAINS TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. NO.13/MDS/13 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DEDU CTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLI ER DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, GROUND NO.3 WAS NOT ADJ UDICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEO US PETITION IN M.P. NO.184 & 185/MDS/2013 BRINGING TO THE NOTICE O F THIS TRIBUNAL THAT GROUND NO.3 WAS NOT ADJUDICATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL WAS REOPENED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING GROUN D NO.3. 4. GROUND NO.3, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IS WI TH REGARD TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGH T TO INDIA WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME GRANTED BY COMPETENT AUTHO RITY. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN GALAXY GRANITES (P.) LTD. V. CIT (2012) 27 TAXMANN.COM 31, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE UNREALIZED EXPORT PROCEEDS, IF ANY, IN FOREIGN CURRENCY HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER F OR COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSING 3 I.T.A. NO.13/MDS/13 OFFICER HAS EXCLUDED THE SALE PROCEEDS, WHICH WAS N OT REALIZED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, T HE DRP IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER P RICING OFFICER / ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI ANURAG SAHAY, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO OR THE ASSES SING OFFICER OR THE DRP HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN GALAXY GRANITES (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), THEREFO RE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80 HHC OF THE ACT, FOUND THAT UNREALIZED SALE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE INCLU DED IN TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ALLOWABLE DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT ON THE BASIS OF VERY SAME ANALOGY, FO R THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, TH E UNREALIZED SALE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE TPO HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN GALAXY 4 I.T.A. NO.13/MDS/13 GRANITES (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS T O FIRST CONSIDER THIS JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE IN RESPECT OF INCLU SION OF UNREALIZED SALE PROCEEDS IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND REMITTED B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN GALAXY GRANITES (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE TH E ISSUE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT OTHER PART OF THE EARLIER ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL REMAINS AS SUCH. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 4 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 4 TH OCTOBER, 2016. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.13/MDS/13 . ,167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. SECRETARY, DRP, CHENNAI 4. TPO-II, CHENNAI. 5. 79 ,1 /DR 6. ' : /GF.