JCIT, Bangalore V. Omni Matrix Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 865/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7579 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80HHC; 10B; 6; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE S HRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . A. NO S . 865 & 866 /BANG/20 16 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( OSD), CIRCLE 5(1)(2), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT. VS. M/S. OMNI MATRIX PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.48, K1 & K2, KIADB INDL. AREA, YELLAPURA, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE - 561 203 . .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, JCIT (D.R) R E SPONDENT BY : NONE. DATE OF H EARING : 20.09.2017. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 22 .09 .201 7 . O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY P AL RAO, J .M . : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDER S BOTH DT.7 . 02.2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 12 , BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS AS UNDER : 2 IT A NO S . 865 & 866 /BANG/20 16 3. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE ARISES IN THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE IS REGARDING ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WITHOUT SETTING OFF THE LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF NON - ELIGIBLE UNIT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE SE NT THROUGH RPAD VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS EX - PARTE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HIMATSINGHIKA SEIDE LTD. 3 IT A NO S . 865 & 866 /BANG/20 16 (156 TAXMAN 151) HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994 - 95 AND THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.10A AND 10B OF THE ACT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2000 W.E.F. 1/4/2001. BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.10A AND 10B, THE INCENTIVE U/S 10A AND 10B WAS NO LONGER IN THE NATURE OF EXEMPTION BUT IT IS IN THE NATURE OF DEDUCTION. BY CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT/SUBSTITUTION OF SEC. 10A AND 10B VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2000 W.E.F. 1/4/2001, HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. & OTHERS (341 ITR 385) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE DECISION O F HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTE D IN 391 ITR 274 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN PARAS 15 TO 17 AS UNDER : 15. SUB - SECTION 4 OF SECTION 10A WHICH PROVIDES FOR PRO RATA EXEMPTION, NECESSARILY INVOLVING DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF DOMESTIC SALES, IS ONE INS TANCE OF DEDUCTION PROVIDED BY THE AMENDMENT. PROFITS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNIT PERTAINING TO DOMESTIC SALES WOULD HAVE TO ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS' IN CHAPTER IV AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION. THE PROVISIO NS OF SUB - SECTION 6 OF SECTION 10A, AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 2003, GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ETC. COMMENCING FROM THE YEAR 2001 - 02 ON COMPLETION OF THE PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY ALSO VIRTUALLY WORKS AS A D EDUCTION WHICH HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AT A FUTURE POINT OF TIME, NAMELY, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY. THE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IN CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT CAN BE UNDERSTAND BY 4 IT A NO S . 865 & 866 /BANG/20 16 ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ANY SUCH REFERENC E OR MENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN A REPETITION OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED IN SECTION 10A. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE OF THE ACT PROVIDING FOR SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS WOULD BE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AND REDUNDANT IF DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A WERE TO BE MADE AT THE STAGE OF OPERATION OF CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT. THE RETENTION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. SECTION 80HHC AND 80HHE, DESPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10A, IN OUR VIEW, INDICATES THAT SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE SE CTION 10A UNITS, NOT CONTEMPLATED BY SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE, WAS INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. SUCH A BENEFIT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY A LEGISLATIVE MANDATE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAGES FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A AND 80HHC AND 80HH E ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. THIS IS THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE CASE WHICH WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO TURN TO. 16. FROM A READING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A IT IS MORE THAN CLEAR TO US THAT THE DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN IS QUA THE ELIGIBLE UND ERTAKING OF AN ASSESSEE STANDING ON ITS OWN AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OTHER ELIGIBLE OR NON - ELIGIBLE UNITS OR UNDERTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS GIVEN BY THE ACT TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKING AND RESULTANTLY FLOWS TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO MORE THAN CLEAR FROM THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR NO. 794 DATED 9.8.2000 WHICH STATES IN PARAGRAPH 15.6 THAT, 'THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 10A AND 10B SHALL BE OF THE UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN SPECIFIE D ZONES OR 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKINGS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND THIS SHALL NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THESE ZONES OR UNITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION.' 17. IF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PROVIDE [FIRST PROVISO TO SECTIONS 10A(1); 10A (1A) AND 10A (4)] THAT THE UNIT THAT IS CONTEMPLATED FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING AND THAT IS ALSO HOW THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR OF THE DEPARTMENT (NO. 794 DATED 09. 08.2000) UNDERSTOOD THE SITUATION, IT IS ONLY LOGICAL AND NATURAL THAT THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING HAS TO BE MADE INDEPENDENTLY AND, THEREFORE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE STAGE OF DETERMINATION OF I TS PROFITS AND GAINS. AT THAT STAGE THE AGGREGATE OF THE INCOMES 5 IT A NO S . 865 & 866 /BANG/20 16 UNDER OTHER HEADS AND THE PROVISIONS FOR SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 70, 72 AND 74 OF THE ACT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR APPLICATION. THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A THEREFOR E WOULD BE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXERCISE TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT FOR ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THE SOMEWHAT DISCORDANT USE OF THE EXPRESSION 'TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE' IN SECTION 10A HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH EARLIER AND IN THE OVERALL SCENARIO UNFOLDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A THE AFORESAID DISCORD CAN BE RECONCILED BY UNDERSTANDING THE EXPRESSION 'TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE' IN SECTION 10A AS 'TOTAL INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING'. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) QUA THIS ISSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22ND SEPT., 2017. SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 22 .09.2017. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 4 CIT(A) 2 RESPONDENT 5 DR. ITAT, BANGALORE 3 CIT 6 GUARD FILE SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.