SECOVA eServices Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 558/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90384 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DAS GUPTA IRS
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . !' , # $% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.558/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/S. SECOVA E SERVICES P. LTD, RR TOWER III, SECOND FLOOR, TVK INDUSTIRAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN: AAHCS 3174R] ( &' /APPELLANT) VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI 600 034. ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. DAS GUPTA, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.05.2015 * / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-15, CHENNAI, D ATED 27.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. I.T.A.NO.558/MDS/2015. :- 2 -: 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED THIS APPEAL ON DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S.10B OF THE ACT, RELIED UPON THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. REGENCY CREATION LIMITED REPORTED A 27 TAXMANN.COM 322 (DELHI). AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THA T IT HAS GOT A LETTER FROM THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF MEPZ-SEZ WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE UNIT APPROVAL COMMITTE E WAS RATIFIED BY BOARD OF APPROVAL IN ITS 4THE MEETING (2013 SERIES) . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF LETTER DATED 19. 02.2014 IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. T HE LETTER DATED 19.02.2014 IS A NEW EVIDENCE WITHOUT PETITION FOR A DMITTING AS A NEW EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. M OREOVER, THE LETTER DATED 19.02.2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM DID NO T MAKE THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10 B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GRA NT DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT AS REQUIRED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE I.T.A.NO.558/MDS/2015. :- 3 -: CASE OF REGENCY CREATIONS LIMITED IN 27 TAXMANN.COM 322(DELHI). HENCE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIS MISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED TH AT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DENYI NG THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT ON MERE TECHNICAL GROU ND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED WITHOUT PETITION F OR ADMISSION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT THE RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD CONSTITUT ED AS PER THE ACT WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S.10B FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22 .02.2014 AND HENCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE DIRECTED THE GRANT DEDUCTION U/S.10B. THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LETTER DATE D 19.02.2014 FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER INTIMATING THE RATIFIC ATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER BY THE BOARD OF A PPROVAL IN ITS 4 TH MEETING (2013 SERIES) HELD ON 30.08.2013 IS NOT SU FFICIENT FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. THE ACTION O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN NOT ACCEPTING THE RATIFI CATION OF APPROVAL I.T.A.NO.558/MDS/2015. :- 4 -: FROM DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER BY BOARD OF APPROVAL IS UNLAWFUL AND UNJUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD TH E RE- COMPUTATION OF THE DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT BY INCLUDING TH E MISCELLANEOUS AND INTEREST INCOME AS PART OF TOTAL TURNOVER. 5. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED PAPER BOOK WITH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:- 1. LETTER TO DCIT DATED 20.02.2014. 2. LETTER FROM MINISTRY OF FINANCE WITH REGARD TO CLARIFICATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B. 3. LETTER FROM MEPZ DATED 19.02.2014. 4. LETTER FROM MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUS TRY REGARDING APPROVAL OF EOU SCHEME. 5. REPLY DATED 12.08.2013 TO THE ASSESSEE REGARD ING APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION UNDER SEZS FOR SETTING UP A SERVICE UNIT IN MEPZ SEZ. 6. APPROVAL GRANTED BY MEPZ DATED 16.10.2003 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD IS NOT SU FFICIENT TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT AND HENCE IT IS TO BE REJECTED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS WHATEVER DOCUMENTS HE HAS I.T.A.NO.558/MDS/2015. :- 5 -: PRODUCED BEFORE US IN PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DECLINED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS THERE IS NO PETITION FOR ADMITTING AS THESE FRESH EVIDENCE. TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO POINT OUT DISCREPANC IES TO ASSESSEE WHEN IT WAS FILED NEW EVIDENCE AND HE ALSO REFRAI NED TO CONSIDER THE SAME. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE HAD HE POINTE D OUT THE DISCREPANCIES AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE. INSTEAD OF THI S, HE OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AS HE HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS AS IT WAS FIRST TIME F ILED WITH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DOCUMENTS AS IN PARA 5 AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.558/MDS/2015 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND DAY OF MAY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) V. DURGA RAO # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !' /CHENNAI. #$ /DATED:22.05.2015. KV I.T.A.NO.558/MDS/2015. :- 6 -: $% &' (' /COPY TO: 1. ) APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. * ( )/CIT(A) 4. * /CIT 5. '+, - /DR 6. ,. / /GF.