2019 (7) TMI 1587 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s.10A - such claim was not made in the original return and the Form No.56F and its enclosures were not filed with original return of income - alternative claim - HELD THAT - When the ITAT remitted the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT to decide the assessee s alternate claim the Assessing Officer cannot reject such claim merely for the reason that such claim was not made in the original return and the required Form No.56F was not filed along with original return because the entertaining of the alternate claim was in accordance with the decision of Appellate Tribunal. Claim made subsequently u/s.10A along with Form No.56F has to be treated as if they were made along with the original return subject to fulfillment of other conditions laid u/s.10A We deem it fit to remit the claim of deduction u/s.10A to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The Assessing Officer shall treat that the assessee s claim of deduction U/s.10A was made in the original return and the Form No.56F already filed are valid forms and then examine whether the assessee s claim of deduction U/s.10A are in accordance with the remaining conditions of provisions of law and after affording due opportunity to the assessee shall pass a speaking order for assessment years 2006-07 2010-11 respectively.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against denial of deduction U/s.10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11.

Analysis:

1. Assessment Year 2006-07:
The assessee, engaged in IT-enabled services, filed an appeal against the denial of deduction U/s.10A by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Initially, the assessee claimed deduction U/s.10B, which was allowed, but later the Assessing Officer withdrew the deduction as approval from the Board was not obtained. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider the alternate claim for section 10A. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim U/s.10A stating that the deduction U/s.10B was claimed in the return, not U/s.10A. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, despite the assessee filing Form 56F. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' decisions incorrect, emphasizing that the alternate claim should have been considered as per the Tribunal's direction. The claim for deduction U/s.10A was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

2. Assessment Year 2010-11:
For this assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction U/s.10B, which was denied. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the TPO/Assessing Officer to consider the allowability of deduction U/s.10A. Despite the Tribunal's direction, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction, and the CIT(A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the assessee's claim for deduction U/s.10A should be treated as if made along with the original return, subject to other conditions. The claim was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination for both assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11.

3. Final Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 as the substantial issue was already remitted back for fresh examination. However, the appeals for assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11 were treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the assessee's claim for deduction U/s.10A, treating it as if made along with the original return, and pass a speaking order after fulfilling all conditions laid down by the law.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made in the judgment regarding the denial of deduction U/s.10A for the mentioned assessment years.