2017 (2) TMI 1273 - HC - Income Tax

Relevant assessment years for the purpose of Section 10A (4) and/or Section 10A (6) - Held that - We are of the opinion that this matter requires reconsideration because one thing is clear on fact that the assessee had not claimed any benefit or any deduction in respect of the years 1993-94, 1994- 95, 1995-96. It is also clear that no exemption was granted to the assessee. Although, the respondent has sought to argue that a specific bar was created by the 2001 amendment by which the right of the assessee to seek anything beyond 1st April, 2001 was not there and his rights stood extinguished or exhausted by way of deemed in fiction, we are unable to agree with that because the amendment, which came thereafter, allowed ten years relief. The intent of the legislature while making these amendments was certainly not to curtail relief to an assessee, who had not availed double benefit. Thus the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal it may clarify the facts of the case fully and give to both parties an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 10A(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the Tribunal's order was based on wrong factual premises.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the Tribunal's decision denying the benefit of Section 10A(6) for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96. The main contention was that the appellant had not claimed any deductions for those years but became entitled to seek and carry-forward deductions after a 2003 amendment. The appellant argued that they did not claim any exemptions or double benefits under the law. The appellant relied on a Delhi High Court decision allowing deductions in a similar case. In contrast, the respondent cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the legislative intent to alter the nature of deductions under Section 10A from exemption to deductions.

2. The High Court observed that the appellant had not claimed any benefits or deductions for the relevant assessment years. Despite the respondent's argument about a specific bar created by a 2001 amendment, the Court disagreed, noting that subsequent amendments allowed for ten years of relief, indicating no intent to curtail relief for assessees who had not availed double benefits. The Court concluded that the matter required reconsideration by the Tribunal to clarify the facts fully and provide both parties with a hearing opportunity. The Tribunal was directed to pass fresh orders within six months from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
The High Court disposed of the appeal, deciding on the first question while deferring consideration of the second issue for a later stage. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough reconsideration by the Tribunal to ensure a fair decision based on a complete understanding of the case. No costs were awarded in the matter.