2019 (1) TMI 13 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s.10B - Disallowance of claim for failure to fulfill the conditions specified in the said section - in response to the alternate claim of deduction CIT(A) allowed the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A and confirmed the AO s decision in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s.10B - Held that - It is undisputed fact that the grounds raised by the assessee revolves around the absence of ground on the claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act. It is also undisputed fact that the assessee raised this alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act before the CIT(A) who eventually allowed the same rejecting the assessee s original claim of deduction u/s.10B of the Act. Further we find the assessee is not legally correct in stating that there is no need for referring to the alternative claim issue u/s.10A of the Act as the decision of the CIT(A) is not final legally. Assessee should have reasonably anticipated the existence of the appeal by the Revenue when the alternative claim is allowed and against the Revenue. We are of the view that Ld. Counsel for the assessee failed in not making mention to the likely existence of appeal by the Revenue. Coming to the expunging of the last line Para No.10 of our order we find that it is a fact that there is no ground at all on the claim u/s.10A of the Act. Thus while making a mention about the alternate claim we find there is an expression of word clear erroneously entered into the said sentence and the same should constitute a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore we are of the opinion that the word clear appearing in the last sentence of Para No.10 of the order of Tribunal should be deleted. AO is directed accordingly. Accordingly the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is disposed pro tanto.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction u/s.10B of the Act by AO.
2. CIT(A) allowing alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A but rejecting u/s.10B.
3. Tribunal partly allowing appeal for statistical purposes.
4. Absence of reference to alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A in Tribunal's order.
5. Miscellaneous Application seeking deletion of reference to u/s.10A claim.
6. Disagreement between Ld. Counsel for assessee and Ld. DR for Revenue.
7. Tribunal's decision on deletion of the last sentence in Para No.10 of the order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the disallowance of deduction u/s.10B by the AO. CIT(A) allowed the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A but upheld the disallowance u/s.10B. Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes due to the CIT(A) not providing a speaking order on all issues raised by the assessee.

2. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the deletion of a reference to the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A in the Tribunal's order. The Ld. Counsel argued that as the grounds revolved around u/s.10B, there was no need to raise the u/s.10A claim, which was already allowed by CIT(A).

3. The Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the deletion, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by the reference to u/s.10A. The Ld. DR also noted that the assessee should have informed the Tribunal about the Revenue's likely appeal.

4. The Tribunal observed that the assessee should have anticipated the Revenue's appeal against the u/s.10A claim allowed by CIT(A). The Tribunal found an error in the last sentence of Para No.10, where the word "clear" was erroneously used. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this word, stating it as a mistake apparent from the record.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the deletion of the word "clear" did not impact the decision to restore the issue to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. The Miscellaneous Application was disposed of pro tanto, and the assessee's application was partly allowed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision regarding the deletion of a reference in the order.