OPRO INFOTECH LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3924/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0862 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 234B; 10B; 6; 144

Judgement Text

QPRO INFOTECH LTD ITA 3924 /M/20 1 2 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E , MUMBAI . , , BEFORE SHRI D KARUNAKARA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUK LA , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 392 4 /MUM/20 1 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 6 - 0 7 ) QPRO INFOTECH LTD , RATNAJYOT, 1 B, PUSHPAM, 30E, CASWASJI PATEL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI 400 00 1 .: PAN : AA ACQ 0953 H VS IT O - 2 ( 3 ) (1) , MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B S BIST /DATE OF HEARING : 20 - 0 7 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 - 07 - 2015 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. : TH E AFORESAID APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 09.03.2012 PASSED BY CIT(A) - 6, MUMBAI IN RELATION TO THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ITAT ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEE N RAISED: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 250 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM WAS BEYOND JURISDICTION AND THE SAME WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 53,79,250/ - . QPRO INFOTECH LTD ITA 3924 /M/20 1 2 2 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT IS WRONGLY CHARGED. 2. ON THE DATE OF HEARING , DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND ON THE BASIS OF FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER S . 3. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 , VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES INCLUDING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B. 4. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION , AS APPEAL WAS FILE D BEYOND THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2010 , RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE FOR PASSING FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B WAS AGAIN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REGARDING CLAIM U/S 1 0B HIS OBSERVATION WAS THAT , AS PER SECTION 10B(3) , THE SALE PROCEEDS OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE EXPORTED OUT OF INDIA HAS TO BE BROUGHT INTO INDIA BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW. HOWEVER T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING THE SALE PROCEEDS WITHIN TIME LIMIT OR OUT OF THE EXTENDED TIME PERIOD . ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. 5. BEFORE THE CI T(A), THE ASSESSEE DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN DID NOT ATTEND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IN ONE OF THE LETTER FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT APPROVAL OF THE RBI BEING STILL SOUGHT, BUT , SUCH AN APPROVAL COULD NOT BE GIVEN EVEN AFTER VARIOUS DATES AS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 5.2. THUS, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B ORDER WAS DENIED. QPRO INFOTECH LTD ITA 3924 /M/20 1 2 3 6. NOW BEFORE US ALSO , NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT APPROVAL OF RBI HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR BRINGING TH E FOREIGN EXCHANGE OF EXPORT PROCEEDS IN INDIA WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE APPROVED AUTHORITIES. THUS, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM U/S 10B . 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JU LY , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( ) ( D KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 31 ST JU LY , 2015 / COPY TO: - 1 ) / THE APPELLANT. 2 ) / THE RESPONDENT . 3) THE CIT (A) - 6 , MUMBAI , 4 ) THE CIT 2 , MUMBAI . 5 ) , , / THE D.R. E BENCH , MUMBAI. 6 ) COPY TO GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / / , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * . . *CHAVAN, SR.PS