9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh certain claims made by it, were disallowed, the eligibility of their claim under Section 10B as a 100% Export Oriented Unit was accepted for the said assessment year. However, it appears that there was certain internal dispute between the Directors of the Company on account of misunderstanding, which resulted in action being initiated before the Company Law Board by filing applications under Sections 397 and 398 read with Sections 402 and 235 to 237 of the Companies Act. It is the claim of the assessee that during the period when there was a dispute, they were facing tremendous strain and on account of the same, they were fully engaged in the process of resolving such dispute. 3. Nevertheless, the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30.9.2008. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act resulting in a demand. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.8.2009. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return on 30.3.2010. Pursuant to the notice, the assessee appears to have placed certain documents and authorised representative also appeared before the Assessing Officer. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents filed and also without affording sufficient opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his case." 4. On the above grounds, it was contended that the Assessing Officer erred in making the additions without fully examining the documents or providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and that the order of remand is in violation of the principles of natural justice. While the appeal was pending, the dispute among the Directors of the Company, was settled and the matter before the Company Law Board, was settled by order dated 4.3.2011. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for acceptance of the following documents as additional evidence: "(i) Approval Certificate from Government of India as a 100% Export Oriented Unit. (ii) Bank Certificate of Export and Realisation for the Financial year 2007-2008. (iii) Invoices for charges incurred for Labour Works for the Financial year 2007-2008. (iv) Invoices for charges incurred for Clearing Agent for the Financial year 2007-2008. (v) Invoices for charges incurred for Job Works for the Financial year 2007-2008. (vi) Financial and Balance-sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence forthcoming, the Assessing Officer had made all the above additions. Furthermore, the Tribunal approved the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application filed under Rule 46A, as well as the order rejecting the appeal on the ground that the assessee was not vigilant. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has filed this tax case appeal and seeks admission on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the rejection of Petition under Rule 46A filed by the Appellant, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not noting the gross violation of the principles of natural justice in the completion of both assessment as well as appellate proceedings? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not noting the gross violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on a remand r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of the assessee to claim exemption under Section 10B of the Act, could not have been disputed as such a claim was accepted from the assessment year 2005-2006 onwards. Furthermore, the learned Counsel reiterated the various contentions on factual issues. 9. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, by placing reliance on the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority, as well as by the Tribunal, submitted that the First Appellate Authority pointed out that several hearing opportunities were given and since the assessee did not respond, the assessment was completed resulting in the demand. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the First Appellate Authority rightly appreciated the scope of Rule 46A and the assessee having not satisfied the four conditions, which have been laid down thereunder, the First Appellate Authority rightly declined permission to the assessee for reception of additional documents. The learned Counsel further submitted that from the tabulated statement given in paragraph No.10 of the order of the First Appellate Authority, it is evidently clear that the assessee was not vigilant and therefore, the order passed by the First Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B of the Act. In the memorandum of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee pointed out that the status of the appellant/assessee as a 100% Export Oriented Unit could not have been disputed as the assessee had fulfilled the basic conditions, for which, the copy of the green card was produced at the time of assessment and as regards the filing of return of income by due date, the return was filed on 30.9.2008, and a certificate in Form 56G from the Chartered Accountant was produced at the time of assessment. As regards FIRC, which was an additional requirement, the assessee explained by stating that the Company had approached the Bankers, with whom, they discontinued their relationship, and since the FIRC pertains to the financial year 2007-2008, it would take considerable time to retrieve such documents; but, the Assessing Officer could not extend time beyond 31.12.2010, and therefore, denied the claim for exemption under Section 10B. Similarly, the assessee also explained that they sold scrap/rejects and had not collected any tax at source. Further, as regards TDS certificates, it was specifically contended that those certificates were not perused by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and details of tax deduction at source in respect of the job work charges and clearing agent charges. This has not been adverted to by the Assessing Officer. But, the Assessing Officer has stated that it is learnt that the assessee did not file any TDS return. As regards FIRC, which was an additional requirement, the assessee could not produce the same since it was for the financial year 2007-2008 and it further stated that they had approached their Bankers, with whom, they had discontinued relationship; but, the Assessing Officer could not extend time beyond 31.12.2010. It is to be noted that for the assessment year 2005-2006, the assessee made a claim under Section 10B and there appears to have been no dispute as regards the assessee's entitlement for such a claim. Rather their status as a 100% Export Oriented Unit was accepted. In such circumstances, it is not known as to why the Assessing Officer doubted the assessee's status as a 100% Export Oriented Unit. It is stated that the assessee along with the return, had produced copy of the green card and filed the return of income within the due date and also produced the certificate in Form 56G from the Chartered Accountant. 15. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
