2020 (12) TMI 1037 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - issue relating to claim of deduction under section 10B - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the then AR while arguing the matter before the Tribunal had submitted that the appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 was pending before the CIT(A) and the hearing for the same is also concluded though the order was not received. It was also submitted by him that fresh evidences produced by the AO which is found during the course of the survey on the assessee, were also produced before the CIT (A). It was also his argument that the issue be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in line with his decision for A.Y. 2009-10. After considering the rival arguments made by both the sides, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue relating to claim of deduction under section 10B. A perusal of the order shows that there is absolutely no error apparent on record. Various decisions relied by the Ld. AR are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessee through this M.A. is requesting the Tribunal to modify / rectify the order of the Tribunal which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. As we have held in above paras, that there is no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal so far as the ground relating to 6 to 12 by the Revenue, the M.A. filed by the assessee being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Assessee to claim deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Computation of deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Admissibility of new evidences found during the course of a survey.
4. Timeliness and maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Assessee to Claim Deduction under Section 10B:
The Tribunal initially upheld the Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B for AY 2009-10, rejecting the Assessing Officer's (AO) grounds for denial. However, the Tribunal noted an error in the computation method used by the Assessee, specifically regarding the valuation of crude ore. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to determine the market value of the crude ore and recompute the deduction accordingly. The Revenue's subsequent Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order were dismissed, and the High Court admitted the Revenue's appeal on limited grounds.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remanded the issue of deduction under Section 10B back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, considering new evidences found during a survey. The Assessee argued that the Tribunal's remand was erroneous as the eligibility issue for deduction under Section 10B was already settled for AY 2009-10 and should not be reopened.

2. Computation of Deduction under Section 10B:
The Tribunal identified that the Assessee had incorrectly debited crude ore at cost instead of market value, as required under Section 10B(7) read with Section 80IA(8). The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the deduction based on the market value of crude ore, using prices paid to outside parties as a reference. For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remanded the computation issue back to the CIT(A) due to new evidences presented by the AO.

3. Admissibility of New Evidences:
The Tribunal noted that new evidences found during a survey were relevant and should be considered by the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The Assessee contended that these evidences pertained to AY 2009-10 and should not affect the subsequent year's proceedings. The Tribunal, however, restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in light of these new evidences.

4. Timeliness and Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application:
The Assessee filed the Miscellaneous Application on 24.04.2019, within the four-year period allowed under the pre-amended Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal confirmed that the amendment reducing this period to six months, effective from 01.06.2016, was not retrospective. Thus, the application was deemed timely and maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's Miscellaneous Application, holding that there was no apparent mistake in its order dated 10.09.2015. The Tribunal clarified that the remand to the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 was justified based on the new evidences found during the survey. The Tribunal emphasized that reviewing its own order is not permissible under the law, and the Assessee's request for rectification was essentially a request for review. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application was dismissed as devoid of merit.