Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, V. M/s. Column Software Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune

ITA 2715/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9156 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKAR A RAO, AM . / ITA NO.2715/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE . /APPELLANT VS. M/S. COLUMN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 6 TH FLOOR, B-WING, S.NO.150, LOHIA JAIN IT PARK, NEAR KOTHRUD DEPOT, PAUD ROAD, CHANDANI CHOWK, PUNE 411 038 PAN : AACCC8915D . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE / DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.03.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A)-1, PUNE, DATED 28-09-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT, ONCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD UPHELD THE ORDER O F THE AO IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/S 10B. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80A (5) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WHICH MANDATE THAT NO DEDUCTION U/S 10A WOULD BE ALLOWABL E UNLESS SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 157 TAXMANN 1, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE CAN AMEND A RETURN FILED BY HIM FO R MAKING A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ONLY BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IGNORING DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHELLY PRODUCTS REPORTED IN 129 TAXMANN 271 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY MAY GRANT RELIEF TO AN ASSE SSEE, IF AN ASSESSEE BY MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE, INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME ANY AMOUNT WHICH IS EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME -TAX, OR IS NOT INCOME WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, WHICH IS CLEARLY N OT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 6. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE SECTION 10A(5) OF THE ACT AS PER WHICH DEDUCTION U/S10A CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT IS FURNIS HED IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO.56F CERTIFYING THAT DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CLAIMED AS PER LAW. IN THIS CASE FORM NO.56F HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND THE PRE SCRIBED DATE AS FORM NO.56F WAS NOT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S10B IN ORIGINAL RETURN BY FILING FORM NO. 56G AND MAKIN G ALTERNATE CLAIM U/S10A BY FILING FORM NO.56F CANNOT BE PERMITTED. 3. BEFORE US, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUMMARISED THE ABO VE GROUNDS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE ABOVE G ROUNDS RELATES TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT ALTERNATIVELY WHEN THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT WERE NOT MET. REVENUE RAISED ALL THESE GROUNDS AGAINST ALLOWING OF SAID ALT ERNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT DESPITE FULFILMENT OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CELOXIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T ITA NO.205/PN/2014, DATED 18-03-2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING ALTERNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10 A OF THE ACT STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGAR D, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS O F PARA NOS. 6 TO 9 OF THE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AND THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A IS ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROFITS OF THE STPI UNITS. 3 5. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE CONSULTA NCY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT & TESTING OF SOFTWARE, DEALING IN SOFTWARE, PROV IDING CUSTOMER SUPPORT INCLUDING TRAINING AND OTHER TECHNICAL S ERVICES RELATED TO SOFTWARE. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 20-09-2008 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,13,550/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF T HE ACT AT RS.36,20,320/-. AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W .S.147 OF THE ACT, AO ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.47,33,870/- AND DENIE D THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.10A OF THE ACT RELYING ON HIS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. CLARION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE GROUNDS RAISED ABOVE. 7. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE ON THIS LIMITED ISSUE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CELOXIS T ECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 RELIED UPON BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND IT RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT OPERATIONAL PARAS FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS AND THE SAME ARE RE PRODUCED HERE AS UNDER : 6. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND WHEREBY ASSESSEE HAS PUT-FORTH ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID GROUND IS A FRESH GROUND RAISED BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS HITHERTO NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE ITS UNIT IS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF STPI, THE PROFITS DERIVED THEREFROM ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AND IN SUPPORT A REFERENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON T HE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEC HNOVATE E SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD., (2013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 290 (DELHI). AT THE TIM E OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IS REJECTED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF REGENCY CREATIONS LTD. (SUPRA), THE ALTERNATIVE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE IS QUITE JUSTIFIED AS THE SAME MEETS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS O F SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PAST YEARS, ASSESSEE HAD 4 CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IT WAS ALSO BEING ALLOWED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIE S. THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND EVEN IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ENTERTAIN A BELIEF THAT THE CLAIM U/S 10B OF THE ACT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF REGENCY CREATIONS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS OF A DATE LATER THAN THE FILING OF RETURN. JUSTIFYING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED, IT WAS P OINTED OUT THAT THE FACTUM OF THE ASSESSEE'S UNIT BEING APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY U/S 10A IS ALREADY ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT T HAT THE FACTS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE ASSESSEE'S PLEA FOR CLAIM U/S 10A OF THE AC T ARE SUBSTANTIVELY ALREADY ON RECORD AND THAT THE CLAIM U/S 10A OF THE ACT BE ENTERTAINED HAVING REGARD TO THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD . VS. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT IN SOME WHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF CLARION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSE E'S PLEA FOR EXAMINATION OF ITS ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE P OINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT WAS NOT CLAIM ED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT A LATER STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS SOUGHT TO BE OPPOSED. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR NOT STAKING ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME BECAUSE IN T HE EARLIER YEARS IT WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 10B OF THE A CT, WHICH WAS ALSO ALLOWED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS NO GR OUND TO SHUTOUT THE PRESENT PLEA BEING RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. NEVERTHE LESS, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL, WHICH WAS HITHERTO NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO A POINT OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS ALREADY ON RECORD. IN THIS C ONTEXT, THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) IS WORTHY OF NOTICE. IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT, IT IS UNDISPUTABLE THAT EOU OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF STPI WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. IN-FACT, UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VALIANT COMMUNICATION LTD. IN I TA NOS.440 - 441/2012 DATED 04.01.2013 CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S ALTERNATE CL AIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORIT IES TO EXAMINE THE SAME, ONCE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED IN ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF CLARION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SITUATION HAD ARISEN AND THE FOLLOWING DISC USSION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RELEVANT :- '16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE PAST YEARS ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2010-11 AL SO ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM ITS STPI UNIT. THIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION CAME TO BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPROVAL FROM DIRECTOR, STPI WAS IN SUFFICIENT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD APPOINTED FOR THIS PURPOSE BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, FOLLOWI NG THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REGENCY CREATIONS LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE AFORESAID SITUATION, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT HAVE ENVISAGED THE DENIAL OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS BEING ALLOWED IN THE PAST. THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCE 5 CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE BONAFIDES OF THE REASONS PR EVAILING WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT HAVING MADE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HAVING REGARD TO THE PECUL IAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, IN OUR VIEW, THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT S OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE THE PRESCRIBED AUDIT REPO RT IN FORM NO.56F WAS NOT FILED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IS QUITE ERR ONEOUS. PERTINENTLY, AFTER DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO STAKE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT WAS BEFORE THE CIT(A); AND, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE CLAIM BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALONG WITH THE PRESCRIBED A UDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.56F. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VALIANT COMMUNICATIONS (SUPRA) IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HEL D THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IS RE QUIRED TO BE EXAMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. PERTINENTLY, EVEN IN THAT CASE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT I N THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED ULTIMATELY IN THE ABS ENCE OF THE UNIT BEING APPROVED BY THE BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CENTRA L GOVERNMENT, WHEREAS THE UNIT WAS ONLY REGISTERED WITH THE STPI. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO CONSID ER THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, WE FIND NO REASON TO DENY THE ASSESSEE A N OPPORTUNITY TO PUT-FORTH ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE AC T WITH REGARD THE PROFITS OF ITS STPI UNIT, SUBJECT OF-COURSE TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS. 17. SECTION 10A OF THE ACT PROVIDES A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM EXPORT OF ARTI CLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED BY IT. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS UNDERTAKEN EXPORT OF COMPUTER S OFTWARE MANUFACTURED BY IT AND ITS UNIT IS REGISTERED WITH DIRECTOR, STPI. THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY DIRECTOR, STPI HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 10A(2)(I)(B ) OF THE ACT EVEN AS PER THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.1 OF 2006 DATED 31 .03.2006. THEREFORE, PRIMA-FACIE THE 100% EOU OF THE ASSESSEE , BEING REGISTERED WITH STPI, IS ELIGIBLE TO STAKE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT, PROVIDED THE OTHER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 10A OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED. THEREFORE, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE JUDGEM ENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VALIANT COMMUNICATI ONS (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE FORM NO.56F FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E CIT(A) AND SUCH OTHER MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS THAT THE AS SESSEE MAY PUT-FORTH IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF DEDU CTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE BEFORE ADJUDICATING ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUC TION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, ON THE ALT ERNATE PLEA ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS.' 9. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE'S PLEA FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE PRO FITS OF THE STPI UNIT CANNOT BE SHUTOUT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE VERIFICATION. SINCE SUCH A CLAIM WAS NOT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE SE CTION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH SUCH SUBMISSIONS AND MATER IAL WHICH IT MAY FIND APPROPRIATE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUC TION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE PLEA SETUP BY T HE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE 6 WITH LAW AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER AFRESH WITH R EGARD TO THE ASSESSEE'S PLEA FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THUS, ON THI S ASPECT ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE POSITION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE DISCUSSED IN PARA 10 OF HIS ORDER DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. A CCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKAR A RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 23 RD MARCH, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, PUNE 4. / THE CIT-1, PUNE 5. , , / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRI VATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE