THE ITO, Guntur V. Transnational Software Services Pvt., Ltd., Guntur

ITA 56/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6605 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R S NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 56 / VIZ /201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 12 ) ITO, WARD - 2(2), GUNTUR. V S . M/S. TRANSNATIONAL SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD., D.NO. 4 - 5 32/52/1, 1/3, VIDANAGAR, GUNTUR. PAN NO. AACCT7092 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.R.S. NARAYANAN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30 / 0 8 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 / 1 0 /201 7 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , GUNTUR , DATED 20/11 /201 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 . 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY DERIVING INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT OF 55,68,144/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN DECLARING INCOME AT NIL WITH A CL A IM OF REF UND OF 2,85,520/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 2 ITA NO. 56/VIZ/2016 ( M/S. TRANSNATIONAL SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD. ) SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AFTER FOLL O W I NG DUE PROCEDURE, ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT'). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODU CE WORK ORDER/PROJECT WORK / SALE BILLS FOR EACH INVOICE ALONG WITH SOFT TECH FORMS IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN EXPORT TURNOVER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BILLS FOR THE ABOVE , EXCEPT FILIN G OF INVOICES. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE ABOVE INFORMATION ALONG WITH SOFT TECH FORMS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 3 . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILS , SUCH AS , WORK ORDER /PROJECT WORK / SALE BILLS FOR EACH INVOICE ALONG WITH SOFT TECH FORMS . THE LD. CIT(A) VERIFIED THE SAME AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE DETAILS WERE FILED ONLY BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CALLING THE REMAND REPORT , SIMPLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RUL E S, 1962 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY B EFORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO. 56/VIZ/2016 ( M/S. TRANSNATIONAL SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD. ) 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT OF TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES. NO DETAILS ARE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) , BUT LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CALLING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SIMPLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WITHOUT CALLING REMAND REPO R T . T HE RE FORE , WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DENOVO IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 1 1 T H DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 1 T H OCTOBER , 201 7 . VR/ - 4 ITA NO. 56/VIZ/2016 ( M/S. TRANSNATIONAL SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD. ) COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - M/S. TRANSNATIONAL SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD., D.NO. 4 - 5 32/52/1, 1/3, VIDANAGAR, GUNTUR. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD - 2(2), GUNTUR. 3. THE PCIT, GUNTUR. 4. THE CIT(A) - 1, GUNTUR. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.