Amtex Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 574/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4399 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS J SREE VIDYA
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , ! , ! & BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.574/MDS/2017 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S.AMTEX SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMTEX INFOTECH PVT. LTD.), 75, CENTURY CENTRE, TTK ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI-600 118. [PAN: AAFCA 0638 J] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI. ( ( /APPELLANT) ( )*( /RESPONDENT) ( + / APPELLANT BY : MRS.J. SREE VIDYA, ADVOCATE )*( + /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SASI KUMAR, JCIT + /DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2017 + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.06.2017 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.574/MDS/2017 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CH ENNAI, IN ITA NO.10/CIT(A)-5/2014-15 DATED 12.01.2017 FOR THE AY 2006-07. ITA NO.574/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 2. MR.SASI KUMAR, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF TH E RESPONDENT AND MRS.J. SREE VIDYA, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE APPELLANT. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT ONLY ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. THE SAME WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT C OMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAME WAS RE-OPENED A ND THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B WAS DENIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALT ERNATIVELY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT WAS DENIED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE AY 2006-07 WAS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT FOR THE AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S.10B HAS BEEN ALLOWED. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B HAD BEEN DENIED BY THE AO. ON APPEAL, LD.CIT(A) HAD GRANTED BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A TO THE ASS ESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT PREFERRED APPEA L AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE AY 2009-10. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT FOR THE AY 2010-11, THE DRP HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A AND AO AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP HAS VERIFIED THE CLAIM AND GRANTED THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.1 0A. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OBJECTION IF TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO ITA NO.574/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: VERIFY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A I F DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. REPORTED IN 284 ITR 323 WHE REIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT CATEGORICALLY HELD AS UNDER: 4. THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF T HE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS TO ENTERTAIN FOR THE F IRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDED THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POWE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY F ILING A REVISED RETURN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE CIVIL APP EAL. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE INCOME-TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON PE RUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GOETZE (INDIA) LTD., WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL DOES HAVE THE POWERS TO ENTERTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDED THE FACT S ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED IS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. REFERRED TO SUPRA, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S.10A IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND GRANT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.574/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 12, 201 7, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: JUNE 12, 2017. TLN + )34 54 /COPY TO: 1. ( /APPELLANT 4. 6 /CIT 2. )*( /RESPONDENT 5. 4 ) /DR 3. 6 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF