M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Shri Ch.Satyajit Mishra, Ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ch.Satyajit Mishra, Ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ch.Satyajit Mishra, Ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

In assessee’s appeals, the assessee has challenged two issues i.e. (i) In assessee’s appeals, the assessee has challenged two issues i.e. (i) In assessee’s appeals, the assessee has challenged two issues i.e. (i) action against the CIT(A) in confirming the denial of deduction u/s.10A of action against the CIT(A) in confirming the denial of deduction u/s.10A of action against the CIT(A) in confirming the denial of deduction u/s.10A of P a g e 1 | 4 & 126 /CTK/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-2011 the Act claimed by the assessee and (ii) that no assessment order having been passed originally on the return filed by the assessee, the reassessment is not permissible in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs CIT, 242 ITR 381 (SC).

In respect of first issue, it was the submission of ld A.R. that the Assessing Officer had denied the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s.10A of the Act on the ground that the assessee was not functioning from Special Economic Zone as prescribed and required under section 10 of the Act. It was fairly agreed by ld AR that the issue had been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal on the same issue for the assessment year 2011- 12. It was the submission that the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2011-12 confirming the denial of deduction u/s.10 of the Act was subjected matter of appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa and the demand has also been stayed. It was the submission that he had no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011- 12, once the order is received for the said assessment year. Ld AR drew our attention to pages 23 to 26 of PB, which is the copy of the order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITA No.3/17. Ld Sr DR did not raise any objection in regard to the issue being restored to the file of the AO to await

P a g e 2 | 4 & 126 /CTK/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-2011 the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in assesse’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 in and to complete the assessment for the impugned assessment years thereafter.

We have considered the rival submissions. As the issue of deduction u/s.10A is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for the subsequent assessment year being A.Y. 2011- 12, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the issue is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after receiving the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 and follow the same as would be directed by the Hon’ble High Court. Consequently, first issue taken in Ground Nos.1 & 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In regard to second issue as to whether the reopening can be done when the original assessment itself has not been completed, it is noticed that the return filed by the assessee has been processed and intimation in the form of acknowledgement of the return filed by the assessee has also been served on the assessee,. The intimation takes the form of assessment order. This being so, the assessment has been completed and reopening can validly be done. In these circumstances, the reopening of assessment is upheld. Consequently, Ground Nos.3 to 4 of the assessee’s appeals in respect of reopening stand dismissed.

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.