Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-1I” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI I.C. SUDHIR:
ORDER The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds:
1. That the Learned CIT(Appeals)[‘CIT(A)’] erred on facts and in law in sustaining the disallowance of the exemption claim made by the appellant u/s. 10B/10A of the Income-tax Act ( for export of computer software made by the appellant).
2. That in addition to above, Learned CIT(Appeals)[‘CIT(A)’] erred on facts and in law in sustaining the disallowance of the exemption claim made by the appellant in gross non appreciation of following aspects and key facts: a. That claim of assessee is fully supported and covered in his favor by Jurisdictional high court and ITAT decisions rendered in identical issue.
2 b. That claim of assessee is allowed and accepted by Ld. A.O. himself in other years during regular assessment, which negates ld CIT-A present decision; c. That assessee’s claim is rejected on irrelevant and extraneous grounds ignoring Ld CIT-A order accepting assessee’s claim in assessee’s own case in previous years.
3. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] erred on facts and in holding that the assessment order dated 18.03.2013, was sent by speed post on 20.03.2013 and was served well before the time barring date, when the order did not reach the appellant before the time barring date, as the address given in the said Annexure-2 is incomplete.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a doctor by profession, is running an 100% EOU under the name and style ELDOCS, and is engaged in the business of export of computer software (medical transcription business). ELDOCS is registered with the Government of India under the Software Technology Parks of India Scheme (STPI) as an 100% EOU and has also been granted a green card for the purpose. The assessee 3 had claimed deduction under sec. 10B of the Act which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the basis that the assessee had not obtained statutory approval of 100% EOU from the Board, instead it had obtained approval under STP Scheme as 100% EOU. In this regard, the Assessing Officer placed reliance on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of Infotec Enterprises Ltd. vs.CIT (2003) – 85 ITD 325 (Hyd.). During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee referring several litigations on the subject submitted that exemption under sec. 10A is available to the assessee in place of sec. 10B. The assessee accordingly filed Form No. 56F for claiming deduction under sec. 10A. The Assessing Officer did not agree with it on the basis that Form No. 56F was not prepared or signed well in time before the filing of the return of income for claiming exemption under sec. 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee had not filed form No. 56F with the return of income which is required as per Rule 16D of the IT Rules. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, which has been questioned by the assessee before the ITAT on the above grounds.
At the outset of hearing, the Learned AR pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble 4 High Court of Delhi in the case of assessee itself for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2009-10 vide order dated 15.12.2015 in 957 and 958/2015.
Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with this further submission that assessee had not obtained statutory approval of 100% EOU from the Board but had obtained approval under STP Scheme as 100% EOU as held in the case of Infotech Enterprises vs. CIT (2003) 85 ITD 325 (Hyd.) followed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the authorities below were justified in denying the claimed deduction under sec. 10A of the Act to the assessee.