SAAHI SYSTEMS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1988/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification of the assessee's details regarding the first year of claiming the deduction. The assessee was directed to appear with relevant details and was granted three opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Section 10A deduction, but the lower authorities disallowed it, stating it was claimed for the first time in AY 2001-02, making AY 2011-12 the 11th year. The assessee contended that the first claim was in AY 2002-03, making AY 2011-12 the 10th year.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct year of first claiming Section 10A deduction and its impact on the eligibility for the assessment year in question. The consequential issue was the validity of the penalty imposed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 144,Section 263,Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1988/HYD/2017
I.T.A. No. 773/HYD/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These two assessee’s appeals for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 06-09-2017 & 06-02- 2019 passed in case Nos.0266/CIT(A)-3/2015-16 & 10012/ITO-3(1)/Hyd/CIT(A)-3/2018-19, in proceedings u/s.144 r.w.s.263 & 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing in former appeal Section 10A deduction amounting to Rs.42,38,196/- for the sole reason that it had claimed the same for the first time in AY.2001-02 and therefore, this beneficial provision would not apply in the 11th year i.e AY.2011-12 before us. The assessee’s sole argument on the other hand is that its first year of claiming impugned relief was AY.2002-03 and therefore, corresponding period of 10 years continues upto AY.2011-12. We proceed to notice in this factual backdrop that the assessee has also filed its detailed paper book(s) prima- facie indicating that it had been incorporated on 23-03-2000 followed by 100% EOU approval under Software Technology Park Scheme on 29-06-2012. And that AY.2000-01 involved assessee’s interest income only of Rs.133 without any profits and gains derived from the eligible unit.

3.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification of assessee’s details to this effect. It is made clear that assessee or its authorised representative shall appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 30-09- 2021 with all the relevant details; at its own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing. Quantum appeal is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms.

4.

Same order to follow in assessee’s penalty appeal being consequential in nature.

5.

Both these assessee’s appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th May, 2021

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →