ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. V. SANTHOSH, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 128/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 January 20174 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of expiry of the holiday period did not arise as the Assessing Officer himself noted it was the 4th year of claim. Therefore, the AO did not adjudicate on this specific point, and it was not an issue before the Tribunal in the original appeal.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed a miscellaneous petition seeking rectification of a previous ITAT order. The grievance was that the assessee was allowed deduction under Section 10B for AY 2009-10, despite the 10-year holiday period allegedly expiring in AY 2006-07.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT order allowing Section 10B deduction was erroneous due to the expiry of the holiday period, when this specific issue was not raised or decided by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri. Kamaladhar, . Counsel
For Respondent: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Hearing: 13/01/2017Pronounced: 23/01/2017

Per Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member

1.

By way of this petition, the revenue is seeking rectification of mistake in the order dated 19.02.2016 of this Tribunal.

2.

We have heard the learned DR as well as learned AR and carefully perused the relevant record. The grievances of the revenue in this miscellaneous application is regarding the decision

MP No. 128/B/2016 (in Page 2 of 4 of the Tribunal in respect of claim of deduction under section 10B, which was allowed by following the decision for the AY 2007-08 as well as for the AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. The learned DR has submitted that since the assessee has already availed 10 years holiday period which expired in the AY 2006-07, therefore is not entitled for deduction under section 10B for the AY under consideration i.e., 2009-10. On the other hand, the learned AR has pointed out that there was no such issue involved in the revenue’s appeal as this claim of deduction under section 10B was claimed by the assessee in respect of Unit No. 2, and the AO disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee has not been manufacturing and exporting the instruments and apparatus. He has referred to para 4.2 of the assessment order in support of his contention and submitted that the AO himself has accepted that this is 4th year of claim. Thus the learned AR has submitted that this issue of expiry of holiday period does not arise as it was not objected by the AO himself.

3.

Having considered the rival submission and relevant material on record, we find that the AO while dealing with this issue has noted in para 4.2 as under:

“As seen from Form-56G submitted at Col. 8 of the form, it is mentioned that it is 4th year of claiming deduction u/s. 10B. Whereas, it should be actually the 5th Asst. Year for which the deduction u/s. 10B is MP No. 128/B/2016 (in Page 3 of 4 claimed after taking into consideration 10/6/2004, being the date of commencement of the Unit. The assessee company is registered as an 100% export oriented unit based at No. 171/2, Maruthi Industrial Estate, Hooday Village, Rajapalya, Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore – 48 and stated to have been manufacturing and exporting instruments and apparatus for measuring and detecting ionizing radiators and claimed a deduction of Rs.4,84,28,512/- u/s 10B in view of its items manufactured from this Unit.”

4.

It is manifest from the facts recorded by the AO that this is 4th year of claim and therefore this issue of expiry of holiday period does not emanate from the orders of the authorities below and consequently there was no question of adjudicating the said issue in the appeal of the revenue. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we do not find any substance or merits in the miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue.

5.

In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd January , 2017.

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →