DCIT, Cir-3(3), Hyderabad V. M/s. Unicorn Industries Pvt.Ltd, Secunderabad

ITA 213/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66157 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M DAYASAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY GANDHI
• Section: 80IB; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 213/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE DCIT CIRCLE-3(3) HYDERABAD VS. M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SECUNDERABAD PAN: AAACU3501D APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI M. DAYASAGAR RESPONDENT BY: SRI AJAY GANDHI DATE OF HEARING: 26 .07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10. 0 8.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, HYDERA BAD DATED 29.10.2010 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO GRANTING OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB THOUGH THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO FILE FORM NO. 10CCB ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS FILED ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. THERE IS A DELAY OF 21 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. THE DEPARTMENT FILED PETITION EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY. W E ARE SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY A ND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT AS PER RECORDS, A N ORDER U/S. 143(1) HAD BEEN PASSED IN THE ASSESSEE CASE ON 05.0 8.2006. LATER, A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 WAS ISSUED. DURING THE REA SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT I.T.A. NO. 213/HYD/2011 M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ========================= 2 FILED THE REQUIRED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB. HOWEVER, THE SAID REPORT WAS FILED DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE UN DERTAKING IN WHOSE RESPECT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB HAD BEEN SHOW N AT RS. 12,36,20,176 , WHEREAS THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RS. 13,49,87,460. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CERTAIN TURNOVER OVER AND ABOVE THE EL IGIBLE LIMIT. HE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQU IRED TO FILE A SEPARATE AUDIT REPORT OF THE UNDERTAKING AS PER RUL E 18BBB, TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S. 80IB. SINCE A SEPARATE AUDIT REPORT WAS NOT FILED, THE DE DUCTION U/S. 80 IB WAS DISALLOWED, WITHOUT EXAMINING THE OTHER REQU IREMENTS NECESSARY FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80I B. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE HOLDING THAT AS THE ASSESSEE FILED FORM NO. 10CCB D URING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMEN TS OF SECTION 80IB, HE GRANTED DEDUCTION. AGAINST THIS, THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING ALLOWABIL ITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE REQUIRED FORM NO. 10CCB WAS NOT FILED ALONG THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IT WAS FILED ONLY DU RING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR OPINIO N, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT DEPRIVED OF GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB AND THE REQUIRED FORM NO. 10 CCB IS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE RE-A SSESSMENT I.T.A. NO. 213/HYD/2011 M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ========================= 3 PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR OPINION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED FOR WHICH WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWIN G ORDERS: A) MRS. MEENA S. BANERJI V. ITO, 14 SOT 569 (MUM) B) MAHALAXMI RICE FACTORY V. ITO, 18 TTJ 553 (CHD.) C) ITO VS. VIJAYADURGA OFF SET PRINTERS, 30 TTJ (HYD) 173 D) SALIM ABBASBHAI V. ITO, 47 TTJ 370 (BOM) 6. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE ORDERS O F THE TRIBUNAL, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2012. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH AUGUST, 2012 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 3(3), 7 TH FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 13/1, RASOOLPURA , SECUNDERABAD-500 003. 3. THE CIT (A) - IV , HYDERABAD. 4. THE C IT - III , HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD