DCIT, CHENNAI V. Abhilasha Jewellers P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1451/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96038 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN JCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATAPKARAN PAULC A
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1451 /MDS./2015 ( !' #' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S.ABHILASHA JEWELLERS PVT LTD., 144,PURASAIWAKKAM HIGH ROAD, KELLEYS, CHENNAI 600 010. PAN AAECA 3581 B ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) $% & ' / APPELLANT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,JCIT,D.R ()$% & ' / RESPONDENT BY : MR.PRATAPKARAN PAUL,C.A * + & ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 10. 09.2015 .# & ,- /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-I, CHENNA I DATED 25.02.2015 IN ITA NO.219/13-14/A-1 (NEW NO.ITA 193/CIT(A-1/2013-14) PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) READ WITH SECTION SEC. 25 0 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1451 /MDS/2015 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOUR ELABORATE GROUNDS I N ITS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT:- THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULE AN D ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. (THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE BEING, THE RECTIFICATION BY THE BOARD ON T HE APPROVAL FOR EOU GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF MEPZ). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF JEWELLERY, AND A 100% EOU ORGANIZATION REGISTERED WITH MEPZ, F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 12/08/ 2010 ADMITTING INCOME OF ` 25,44,236/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT FOR ` 2,21,35,297/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE RETURN WAS TAKEN FO R SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 2 7.03.2013 WHEREIN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE RECTIFICATION BY THE BOARD ON THE APPROVAL FOR EOU GRANTED BY THE ITA NO.1451 /MDS/2015 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF MEPZ. ON APPEAL THE LD . CIT (A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R:- 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. IT APPEARS THAT THE AC HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF 10B THR OUGH HIS ORDER DATED 27.3.2013 FOR WANT OF RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF APPROVALS NECESSITATED UNDER ECU SCHEME. THE APPELLANT HAS OBTAINED ONLY A PPROVAL FROM DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND FURTHER RATIFICATION B Y A BOARD OF APPROVAL HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE THE AC DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10B RELYING ON THE CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.2/2009 DATED 9.3.2009. IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR, STPI, WHO IS THE DESIGNATED O FFICER, GIVES APPROVAL FOR SETTING UP OF EOU WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U /S 10A & 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO 10B CLAIM, THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR QUOTED SUPRA HAS MADE AN EXTRA CONDITION OF RATIFIC ATION BY THE BOARD OF APPROVAL FOR ECU SCHEME. THE AC HAS FOLLOWED THE CI RCULAR AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WHICH CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH. I HA VE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE ME RECEIVED FROM TH E ASST. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER VIDE LETTER IN F.NO.A/2003/52/EOU-TN D ATED 28.3.2013 WHO HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE APPROVAL WAS RATIFIED BY THE BOARD OF APPROVAL. AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION SAME AND ALSO OTHER DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF RATIFICATION OF BOARD OF APPROVAL FILED BY THE ID AR BEFORE ME I FI ND THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT ACCORDING LY I DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NOT PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BASED ON WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE LD. D.R VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BY STATING T HAT THE RECTIFICATION BY THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL WAS ALSO NO T PRODUCED BEFORE ITA NO.1451 /MDS/2015 4 THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD RELIE D ON THE LETTER OF THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER WHO HAD CONF IRMED THAT THE APPROVAL WAS RECTIFIED BY THE BOARD OF APPROVAL AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE RECTIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF APPROVAL. THE LD. A. R. ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPROVAL FOR EOS SCHEME HELD ON 30 TH AUGUST 2013 WHEREIN THE REQUISITE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. FROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE US, IT APPEARS THAT THE REQU ISITE RECTIFICATION HAS BEEN ACCEDED BY THE BOARD, HOWEVER IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER MERITS AND LAW, NEEDL ESS TO MENTION THAT IF THE RECTIFICATION BY THE BOARD ON THE APPR OVAL FOR EOU GRANTED ITA NO.1451 /MDS/2015 5 BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF MEPZ IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( . '#$ %' ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 . K S SUNDARAM. & (,/0 1 0#, /COPY TO: 1. $% /APPELLANT 2. ()$% /RESPONDENT 3. * 2, ( ) /CIT(A) 4. * 2, /CIT 5. 05 (,6! /DR 6. 7' 8+ /GF