ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s NIIT Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4961/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7796 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA M BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN; BHAVITA KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 115JB; 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4961 /DEL/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ACIT, CIRCLE 9(1), ROOM NO. 163, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI VS. M/S. NIIT LTD, B - 234, OKHLA INDL. AREA, PHASE - I, NEW DELHI GIR/PAN : AAACN0085D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. PARAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY SH. ROHIT JAIN & MS. BHAVITA KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 05.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A. M. : THIS APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 05/07/2012 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - XXXII, NEW DELHI , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE - 46A. OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2) THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ALLOWABLE AT THE SOURCE ITSELF AND NOT AFTER COMPUTATION OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3) THA T THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT AFTER AMENDMENT TO SECTION - 108 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 W.E.F. 01.04.2001 DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY THE ELIGIBLE UNITS AS OPPOSED TO THE EARLIER PROVISIONS WHERE SUCH PROFIT OR GAIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. (A) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 ITA NO. 4961/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 2. THE F ACTS IN BRIEF A S CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A R E THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 31/10/200 7 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,53,75, 663 / - UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ), HO WEVER , THE TAX WAS PAID ON BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 25,81, 92,595/ - UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROFIT DE RIVED FROM TWO HUNDRED PERCENT EXPORT ORIENTE D U NDERTAKINGS (EOU) , NAMELY , NIIT - KTWO (RS. 2,98,43, 200 / - ) AND NIIT - MUMBAI (RS. 1,33,87, 610/ - ) . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IN THE ASSESSM ENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT TH E INCOME AS ASSESSED AT RS. 26,65,16, 460/ - . IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WAS RE - COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT ALL THE ELIGIBLE EXPORT O RIENTED UNDERTAKINGS (EOU) AND NON - ELIGIBLE EOU WERE ONE SINGLE UNIT AND THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS ADJUSTED WHILE COMPUTING PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE UNIT UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS BEFORE ALLO WING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E - TAX( APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH WERE ADMITTED. THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) HELD THAT BOTH THE EOUS WERE INDEPENDENT UNIT AND , THEREFORE , DEDUCTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE RATIO OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF S UCH UNIT TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF SUCH UNIT. ON THE SECOND ISSUE, THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B WAS ALLOWABLE A T THE SOURCE ITSELF AND NOT AFTER COMPUTATION O F GROSS TOTAL INCOME. AGGRIEVED, WITH THE ABOVE SECOND FINDING OF THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS), THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. IN THE GROUND NO. 1, THE R EVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADMISSION OF THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 4 6A OF THE INCOME TAX R ULES BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEAL S). 3 ITA NO. 4961/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 3.1 THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ADMITTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) UNDE R RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX R ULES ARE MENTIONED IN PARA 2.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: S. NO. PARTICULARS PAPPER BOOK PAGE NO. 1. COPIES OF CUSTOMS LICENCES OF EACH UNIT; 77 - 87 2. LIST OF FIXED ASSETS PURCHASED AT VARIOUS UNITS AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF EOUS 112 - 114 3. SEPARATE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 56 G - ALONG WITH SEPARATE AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR EACH EIIGIBLE UNIT. 50 - 61 4 COPIES OF CUSTOM BONDED REGISTER MAINTAINED BY EACH UNIT ON SAMPLE BASIS COPIES OF MONTHLY / ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS ON SAMPLE BASIS COPIES OF SOFTEX FORMS, INVOICES AND FOREIGN INWARD REMITTANCE CERTIFICATES ON SAMPLE BASIS 88 - 91 92 - 1.11 115 - 218 3.2 T HE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS OBJECTIONS FOR ADMISSION. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3.3 THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) ADDRESSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX R ULES. 3.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) , SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) IN ACCORDANCE TO THE R ULE 46A OF THE R ULES. 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) HAS DEALT THE ISSUE IN DETAIL IN PARA 2.4 AND 2.4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4 ITA NO. 4961/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 2.4 I H AVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT AND THE REJOINDER OF THE APPELLANT. FIRST OF ALL , I WOULD LIKE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE AS SOUGHT TO BE ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THEIR APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE APPELLANT HAVE TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I) THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ONLY SEEK TO FURTHER CORROBORATE/SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ALL THE ELIGIBLE EOU S ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT UNITS, WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS ALREADY ON RECORD. II) THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. AS THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER ISSUED ANY NOTICE OR AFFORDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE, THAT THE VARIOUS UNITS OPERATING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE EXISTENCE AND COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ONE COMMON BUSINESS. III) THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED IN HASTE WITHOUT RAISING SPECIFIC QUERY BASED ON WHICH FINAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED THEREBY DENYING SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE THE ENTIRE EVIDENCES. IV) THAT THE EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED ARE CRITICAL AND MATERIAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL. 2.4.1 THE AD, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE NEIT HER THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING ANY EVIDENCE BY THE AO NOR THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IS UNDUE HASTE SO AS TO DEBAR ,THE APPELLANT FROM FILING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME EVIDENCE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ADMI TTED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 IN THE APPELLANT S OWN CASE AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF RECORD . BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THESE EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT THE TWO EOUS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE AC T WERE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AS WELL AS OF THE OTHER NON - ELIGIBLE UNITS. THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS TO ADMIT AT THIS LEVEL ARE MAINLY DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CUSTOMS LICENSES ISSUED TO EACH OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS AND THE REGISTERS MAINTAINED B Y THOSE UNITS UNDER THE CUSTOM RULES, DETAILS OF FIXED ASSETS PURCHASED AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF THE EOUS AND SEPARATE MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORTS OF THE EOUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RAISED ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS BUT HAS ONLY ARGUED THAT THESE MAY NOT BE TAKEN ON RECORD AT THIS STAGE. TO MY MIND, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MATERIAL TO DECIDE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE EOUS ARE TO BE TREATED AS SEPARATE UNDERTAKINGS OR THEY ARE IN FACT EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLA NT COMPANY AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEXT HUNDRED INDIA PVT. LTD.: 239 CTR 263 , HELD THAT RULE 29 ENABLES THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DO SUBSTA NTIAL JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. THEIR LORDSHIPS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES, INCLUDING THAT RELATING TO FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IS HANDMADE FOR JUSTICE AND JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CHOKED ONLY BECAUSE OF SOME INADVERTENT ERR OR OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO LEAD EVIDENCE. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VIRGIN SECURITIES & CREDITS (P) LTD.: 332 ITR 396 (DEL) , THE HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE CIT(A) MAY ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AFTER OBTAINING. A REMA ND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF THE 5 ITA NO. 4961/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE ADDUCED BY THE APPLICANT IS CRUCIAL TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. HON'BLE ITAT DELHI HAVE ALSO HELD IN THE CASE OF ELECTRA (JAIPUR) (P) LTD. VS. LAC (26 ITD 236). THAT IF THE EVIDENCE IS G ENUINE, RELIABLE, PROVES THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY. SIMILARLY IT WAS HELD IN DWARKA PRASAD VIS ITO. 63 ITO 1 (TM) THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE' AND RENDERS ASSISTANCE TO THE AUTHOR ITY IN PASSING ORDER, MAY BE ADMITTED: OTHER SIMILAR RULINGS ARE 68TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1 ,21 SO T 218, 293 ITR 53, 94 ITD 79 ETC. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT IS HELD THAT THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE GUIDANCE AVAILABLE IN THE AFORE - CITED .JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS MENTIONED IN PARA 2.3 ABOVE ARE ADMISSIBLE U/R 46A AND ARE TAKEN ON RECORD 3.6 W E FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) HAS DEALT ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REM AND REPORT WITH REGARD TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEXT HUNDRED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUP RA) AND CIT VS. VIRGIN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). IN OUR OPINION, THE FINDING S OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE WELL REASONED AND NO INTERF ERENCE ON OUR PART IS REQUIRED. A CCORDINGLY , WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 , THE R EVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDING S OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWABLE AT THE SOURCE ITSELF IGNOR ING THE AMEN DMENT TO SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01/04/2001 , ACCORDING TO WHICH , THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B WAS TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PROFIT AND GAINS DERIVED BY THE ELIGIBLE UNIT. 5. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, TH E LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR AY 2006 - 07 IN ITA NO. 1112/DEL /2012. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR, HOWEVER, SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 ITA NO. 4961/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 6. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) THAT A N IDENTICAL QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND S NO. 2 AND 3, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE AT THE SOURCE ITSELF AND NOT AFTER THE COMPUTATION OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME. 3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALLOWIN G THAT DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AFTER DEDUCTING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS WITHOUT APPRECIATION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY RECOMPUTED THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR EARLIER YEAR AS A RESULT OF WHICH NO UNABSORBED D EPRECIATION WAS A VAILABLE FOR SET OFF IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 7. A FTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDE, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RELATING TO THE ELIGIBLE EXPORT ORIENTED UNITS (EOU S). THEREFORE, ADJUSTMENT IN THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE EOU WAS N OT TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE SAID UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CERTAIN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT AGAINST THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE 100% EOU. 16. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. 341 ITR 385 HELD AS UNDER: THAT AS THE PROFITS AND GAINS UNDER SECTION 10A WERE NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL, THE QUESTION OF SETTING OFF THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY BUSINESS AGAINST SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE UNDERTAKING WOULD NOT ARISE. SIMILARLY, AS PER SECTION 72(2), UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE FIRST SET OFF AND THEREAFTER UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TREATED AS CURRENT YEAR S DEPRECIATION UND ER SECTION 32(2) IS TO BE SET OFF. AS THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE QUESTION OF UNABSORBED ITA NO. 1112/DEL/2012 NIIT LTD. 16 BUSINESS LOSS BEING SET OFF AGAINST SUCH PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE U NDERTAKING WOULD NOT ARISE. 17. SIMILARLY , THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 361 ITR 36 (DEL.) HELD AS UNDER: THAT FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IN RESPECT OF AN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE UNIT, THE LOSSES SUFFERED IN THE NON - EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE UNIT NEED NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS/INCOME OF THE EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE UNIT. THE 7 ITA NO. 4961/DEL/2012 AY: 2007 - 08 BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF THE NON - EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE UNIT NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED OR REDUCED. 18. THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT & THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THESE TWO GROUN DS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 8. THUS WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE R EVENUE AND AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) IN ALLOWING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF NON - ELIGIBLE UNIT AFTER COMPUTATI ON OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 9. GROUND S NO. 4 AND 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND , THEREFORE , NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE BY US. 10. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 T H MAY , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( DIVA SINGH ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 0 T H MAY , 2016 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI