M/s Innovativeminds Software Solutions P. Ltd., Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 304/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 30421114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 139(5); 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N.K SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.304/B ANG/2011 (ASST. YEAR - 2006-07) M/S INNOVATIVE MINDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., 149, SIR M.V COMPLEX 3 RD FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD, CHOKKASANDRA, PEENYA, BANGALORE. . APPELLANT. PAN NO.AABCI3793C VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE DATE OF HEARING : 30-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-01-2012 O R D E R PER P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) I AT ITA NO.304/B/11 2 BANGALORE DATED 12.01.2011. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT OF RS.12,99,941/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLAIM UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND THAT ITS CLAIM IS U/S 10 B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ONLY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.11. 2006 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE BENEFIT UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT IN SCHEDULE 10 INSTEAD OF BENEFIT UNDER SEC. 10B OF THE ACT IN SCHEDULE 9. DURING THE COUR SE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE A R WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS FOR THE CLAIM MADE UNDER CHAPTER VIA. IN REPLY TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED CHAPTER VIA WAS ERRONEOUS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY ENT ITLED TO BENEFIT ITA NO.304/B/11 3 U/S 10B OF THE ACT BEING A 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNI T. THE LEARNED AR ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF THE SAME AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM U/S 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HOWEVER NOT CONVINCED BY THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE REV ISED RETURN U/S 139(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO SET RIGHT A WRONG STATEMEN T OR OMISSION. HE HELD THAT AN INTIMATION U/S 143(1) WAS ALREADY ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.9.2007 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION BUT EVEN THEN THE REVISED RETURN WAS NOT FILED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, HE HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION OF SEC. 10B CANNOT BE ALLOWED AND DENIED THE CLAIM. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND TH E ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REIT ERATING ITS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, HAD ALSO FILED FORM NO .56G ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH IS INDICATIVE OF THE FA CT THAT THE CLAIM WAS ONLY U/S 10B OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ONLY BY MISTAKE THAT ITA NO.304/B/11 4 THE CLAIM WAS MADE U/S 10B INSTEAD OF UNDER SCHEDUL E 9 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE RECT IFIED THE MISTAKE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S 10B OF THE ACT. HE HAS DR AWN OUR ATTENTION TO FORM 56G OF THE ACT WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FO RM NO.56G BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) BUT BOTH THE AUTHORITI ES HAVE ONLY PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA, THOUG H IT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE SAME AND NOT UNDER SCHEDULE 9 FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO THE CLAIM U/S 10B AND HAS FILED THE PRESCRIBED FORMS IN SUPPORT O F ITS CONTENTIONS, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE AND OUGH T TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DI RECTION TO EXAMINE FORM NO.56G AND ALSO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND IF IT IS FOUND TO BE ENTITLED, THEN THE ITA NO.304/B/11 5 MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CLAIMING THE D EDUCTION U/S CHAPTER VIA SHALL BE IGNORED AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH JAN, 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.K SAINI) (P MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 30/01/2012 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE.