ACIT, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad V. M/s. Vision 2K + Inc., Hyderabad

ITA 631/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66090 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V RAMANA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.631/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 ASSTT . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 4(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) V/S M/S. VISION 2K+ INC., HYDERABAD. (PAN - AACFV 4642 H ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.V.RAMANA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 31.7.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3.8.2012 O R D E R PER D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) V, HYDERABAD DATED 23.2.2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS FOLLOWS- 1. .. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-V HYDERABAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10B IN SPI TE OF THE FACT THAT IT HAD NOT OBTAINED THE REQUIRED APPROVAL FORM THE BOARD AUTHORISED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. AS PER EXPLANATION 2(IV) OF SUB-SECTION 8 OF SEC.10B OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD OUGHT TO HAVE HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TOE EXEMPTION U/S. 10 B IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BOARDS APPROVAL. THUS, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATE S TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER S.10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ITA NO.631/HYD/2012 M/S. VISION 2K+ INC., HYDERABAD. 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE IN TERMS OF S.10B OF THE ACT, RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, VIDE DETAILS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.1.2011 IN ITA NO.696/HYD/2011 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, AND MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 100% EOU AND 100% EOU APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND UNIT UNDER STPI SCHEME. HE MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOLLOWED THE STILL EARLIER D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. K.SUDHA RANI V/S. ITO(ITA NO.1750/ HYD/2008 DATED 30.10.2008). 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ISS UE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06, CITED SUPRA, AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT IS BASED ON THE SAID ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 . IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN TURN, IS BASED ON TH E STILL EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE OF SMT. K.SUDHA RANI ( SUPRA). FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEING IDENTICAL TO THE ONES CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECISION TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE DEPARTMENT, W ITH DUE RESPECT TO ITA NO.631/HYD/2012 M/S. VISION 2K+ INC., HYDERABAD. 3 THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TA KEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE POINT AT ISSUE IN SI MILAR CASES, INCLUDING IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHIC H IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS AP PEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03 RD AUGUST, 2012 SD/- SD/- ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 3 RD AUGUST, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. VISION 2K+ INC., 6 - 2 - 929/A, BESIDES ZEE TELUGU CHANNEL, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. 3. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 4(1), HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IV, HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.