M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

Suffice to say, the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground seeks to raise sec.10A deduction claim which has been rejected by both the learned lower authorities. It emerges during the course of hearing that the instant first and foremost issue is no more res integra keeping in mind the fact tha this tribunal’s earlier learned coordinate bench; dealing with the assessee’s appeals itself to 857/ Coch./2001 and ITA.No.847/Coch./2007 for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 5 ITA.No.380/Coch./2016 & SA.26/Coch./2018 2004-2005, had partly accepted the same for statistical purposes; which in turn, stands upheld in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s judgment dated 20.07.2018 in assessee’s Tax Appeals arising therefrom ITA.No.415/2009; reading as under :

It is in this factual backdrop that we adopt judicial consistency in absence of any distinction pinpointed so far as the assessee’s impugned sec.10A deduction and direct the learned Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the assessee’s instant first and foremost substantive grounds in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities ought not to have rejected it’s sec.10AA deduction claim raised for the first time in the impugned assessment year i.e., A.Y. 2008-2009.

Learned DR invited our attention to para-5 page-10 of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion that the latter has 10 ITA.No.380/Coch./2016 & SA.26/Coch./2018 affirmed the assessment findings once the assessee had not placed on record the cogent supportive material.

Learned counsel’s case on the other hand is that assessee had raised the impugned deduction claim u/sec.10AA of the Act for the first time qua a new undertaking and also placed on record the relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. He further refers to assessee’s pleadings in ground no.4 in this regard. Coupled with this, learned counsel has filed three paper books as well in support of the assessee’s sec.10AA deduction claim. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s second substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Lastly comes sec.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.10,54,082/- made in the course of assessment and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Learned counsel inter alia submits that not only the assessee had derived it’s exempt income from investments made in foreign subsidiaries which is taxable but also investments

This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.380/Coch./2016 is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. It’s stay application S.A.No.26/Coch./2018 stands rendered academic and dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.