DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. ABT INFO SYSTEMS P LTD., COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 480/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 November 2015AY 2008-096 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when a new claim is made before the CIT(Appeals), the Assessing Officer should be given an opportunity to examine its correctness. Since this was not done, the matter was remitted back.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially claimed deduction under Section 10B, which was rejected. The CIT(Appeals) allowed an alternative claim under Section 10A without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing an alternative claim under Section 10A without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B,Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 14.10.2015Pronounced: 13.11.2015

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.480/Mds/2015
ITA No.481/Mds/2015

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

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore, dated 12.12.2014, relating to two individual assessees.

Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard both the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') before the Assessing Officer. The same was rejected since the assessee has not obtained necessary approval from the Board, as required under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. However, the CIT(Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 10A of the Act without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee has not made any claim under Section 10A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no occasion to examine the claim of the assessee under Section 10A of the Act. In fact, it was an alternative claim made by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have given opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee. Since such an opportunity was not given, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

3.

Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee in submitted that the alternative claim under Section 10A of the Act was made before the CIT(Appeals). In fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee under Section 10B of the Act. After considering various decisions on the issue, including the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (38 SOT 252), the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to calculate deduction under Section 10A of the Act. On a query from the Bench whether any opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee under Section 10A of the Act, The Ld.counsel for the assessee had fairly submitted that no opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer and no remand report was called for.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Act before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee.

In fact, the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of rejection of claim under Section 10B of the Act.

However, by considering alternative claim of the assessee under Section 10A of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to compute deduction under Section 10A of the Act. When a new claim was made before the CIT(Appeals), this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that an opportunity should be given to the Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of the claim.

Otherwise, the CIT(Appeals) being an authority coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer, has to examine the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), by placing reliance on certain case laws, directed the Assessing Officer to compute deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) admittedly has not given any opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the alternative claim of the assessee under Section 10A of the Act has to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer in the light of the material available on record. Accordingly, the order of the lower authority is set aside and the issue of deduction under Section 10A of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue afresh in the light of the material available on record and thereafter decide the claim of the assessee under Section 10A of the Act, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13th November, 2015 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 10B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →