2020 (1) TMI 985 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 10B on the manufacturing services carried out - apparent mistake in the Tribunal order - HELD THAT - Ratification by the Board relates back to the date of actual grant. From para no. 30, the Tribunal is discussing about other aspect i.e. the assessee s claim of deduction u/s. 10B with regard to R D activities and till para no. 43, the discussion is only about R D activities and thereafter in para 44 of the impugned Tribunal order as reproduced above, it was held that ground nos. 1 to 5.4 raised by the assessee are dismissed. Hence in our considered opinion, there is apparent mistake in the Tribunal order because ground no. 5.4 raised by the assessee in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 10B of the IT Act on the manufacturing services carried out by the assessee was not decided specifically and this ground was dismissed in spite of this finding in para no. 29 of the Tribunal order that ratification by the Board relates back to the date of actual grant of permission. Hence, we recall this Tribunal order for Assessment Year 2009-10 for limited purpose for deciding ground no. 5.4 of this appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10. Appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12 was decided in favour of the revenue simply on this basis that in assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10, the issue regarding deduction u/s. 10B was decided against the assessee. We have already held in the above para that for Assessment Year 2009-10, the matter has to be heard again for the limited purpose for deciding ground no. 5.4 raised by the assessee in that year. This was the submission of assessee before us that for Assessment Year 201112, deduction allowed by ld. CIT(A) was only regarding manufacturing activities and since the issue regrading allowability of deduction u/s. 10B for manufacturing activity is to be decided again by the Tribunal, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12 should also be decided simultaneously. Hence, we recall the impugned Tribunal order for deciding the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12 simultaneously while deciding ground no. 5.4 in assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Apparent mistakes in the combined Tribunal order for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12.
2. Rejection of deduction u/s. 10B of the IT Act for manufacturing activities.
3. Dismissal of ground no. 5.4 raised by the assessee in the Tribunal order.
4. Board ratification relating back to the date of actual grant.
5. Decision regarding deduction u/s. 10B for manufacturing activities for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12.
6. Recalling the Tribunal order for Assessment Year 2009-10.
7. Appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The assessee filed two M.Ps. contending apparent mistakes in the Tribunal order for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12. The first M.P. focused on the rejection of deduction u/s. 10B for manufacturing activities for 2009-10. The Tribunal recalled the order to decide ground no. 5.4 raised by the assessee, emphasizing that Board ratification relates back to the date of actual grant.

2. The Tribunal found an apparent mistake in the order as ground no. 5.4 was not specifically decided, despite the relevance of ratification by the Board. The second M.P. for 2011-12 highlighted the need to rectify the decision based on the Tribunal's ruling for 2009-10. The Tribunal decided to recall the order for both years to address the deduction u/s. 10B for manufacturing activities.

3. The Tribunal reiterated the importance of considering the manufacturing activities' deduction claim in light of the Board's ratification. The decision for 2011-12 was linked to the outcome of the reassessment for 2009-10, emphasizing the need for a simultaneous review. Both M.Ps. filed by the assessee were allowed, directing a reevaluation of the deduction claims for the specified years.

4. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and reconsideration of the deduction u/s. 10B for manufacturing activities underscored the significance of proper adjudication and rectification of apparent mistakes in the Tribunal order. The decision to recall the order for both years aimed to ensure a fair and comprehensive review of the assessee's claims in line with legal provisions and precedents.

5. The Tribunal's meticulous approach in addressing the issues raised by the assessee showcased a commitment to upholding justice and adherence to legal principles. By recalling the order and directing a reevaluation, the Tribunal demonstrated a dedication to ensuring a thorough and accurate assessment of the deduction claims, thereby promoting transparency and fairness in the judicial process.