9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 570 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s. 263 - setting aside the deduction u/s 10A as the assessee company did not produce the permission from the competent authority i.e., RBI for bringing the foreign exchange into India beyond 6 months from the date of export but within 12 months - Held that - In the present case, the assessee-company has submitted a letter to the learned A.O. from HDFC Bank being the authorized dealer which clearly stated that they are authorized by RBI under sub section (1) of section 10 Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) as authorised person. Confirmation was provided by the authorized dealer i.e., HDFC Bank that the realisation and repatriation of the remittances of ₹ 15 crores was permitted by RBI under notification No.FEMA/25/2000-RB dated 3.5.2000 to be brought into India within 12 months from the date of export. The proceeds have been brought into India within extended time stipulated by RBI and hence, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of HCL EAI Services Ltd. vs. DCIT 2013 (11) TMI 772 - ITAT BANGALORE . Further, as seen from the record the assessee has received the amount within the permitted period by the competent authority. Accordingly, the Order of Assessing Officer is not prejudicial to the interests of Revenue nor is erroneous. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the CIT is not correct and accordingly, the CIT does not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal for condonation, Correctness of assessment order u/s. 143(3), Interpretation of provisions u/s. 10A, Competency of RBI for relaxation, Exclusion of export proceeds, Application of Explanation 2 to Section 10A, Jurisdiction of CIT u/s. 263. Delay in Filing Appeal for Condonation: The appeal addressed a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal, seeking condonation based on a Tribunal decision. The delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits. Correctness of Assessment Order u/s. 143(3): The CIT found the assessment order erroneous due to non-receipt of foreign remittances within the stipulated time. The CIT set aside the order for re-computation of deduction u/s. 10A, requiring the assessee to produce permission from RBI for bringing foreign exchange into India. Interpretation of Provisions u/s. 10A: The CIT held that the assessee misinterpreted the circular of RBI, emphasizing the need for specific approval for relaxation under section 10A(3). The CIT concluded that the deduction granted by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Competency of RBI for Relaxation: While acknowledging RBI as the competent authority for relaxation, the CIT emphasized the necessity for the assessee to apply for such relaxation under section 10A(3), rather than relying on general circulars. Exclusion of Export Proceeds: The CIT directed that the deduction u/s. 10A should be set aside due to non-production of permission for bringing foreign exchange beyond the stipulated time, deeming the AO's action as prejudicial to revenue. Application of Explanation 2 to Section 10A: The assessee argued for exemption u/s. 10A based on RBI circulars and the constructive receipt of export proceeds in India. The Tribunal considered similar cases and concluded in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of compliance with RBI regulations. Jurisdiction of CIT u/s. 263: The Tribunal, based on submissions and documents provided by the assessee, found the order of the CIT not in the interest of revenue, setting it aside and allowing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the compliance with RBI regulations and the timely receipt of proceeds as per the competent authority's permission.
|
