9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. Interpretation of the amendment to section 10B extending the benefit from five to ten years. Summary: Issue 1: Eligibility for Exemption u/s 10B The primary grievance of the assessee was the rejection of its claim for exemption u/s 10B for the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee, a 100% export-oriented unit (EOU), had already availed the benefit of section 10B for five consecutive years. The claim for further exemption was based on the amendment to section 10B, effective from 1st April 1999, which extended the benefit to ten consecutive years. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) both rejected the claim, stating that the amendment did not have retrospective effect and the law, as it stood during the relevant assessment year, provided for only five years of exemption. Issue 2: Interpretation of the Amendment to Section 10B The assessee argued that the legislative intent was to extend the benefit of exemption from five years to ten years, and this should apply to existing units as well. The assessee relied on the Statement of Objects and Reasons and judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support this view. However, the Tribunal noted that the general rule is that statutes are prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's principle that retrospective operation must be clear and unambiguous. The Tribunal found no express provision for retrospective operation in the amendment and concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 10B for the relevant previous year. The Tribunal also addressed the argument of casus omissus, stating that it cannot supply a matter not provided in the statute. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations that the intention of the Legislature must be gathered from the words used in the statute and not inferred. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's interpretation of the legislative intent and confirmed that the amendment was not retrospective. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grievance and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal.
|
