9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed u/s. 10A with respect to the STPI units by invoking section 145, whereas there were instances of discrepancies pointed out with regards to the claim of deduction u/s. 10A and the books results shown by the STPI units of the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 10A in respect of the STPI units without giving an opportunity to the department although Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made on similar lines u/s. 10A 3. In the light of the above facts, the order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the AO be restored. 2. The facts which are revealed from the record as under. The assessee has set up undertakings at Software Technology ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed his reliance mainly on assessment order for A.Y. 2001-02 in which year the book results were rejected and deduction was independently worked out. The same approach was adopted by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y. 2004-05 as he was of firm opinion that the profits shown for claiming the deduction u/s. 10A are much more at higher side than it should be in realities. 3. The Assessing Officer also referred to the A.Ys. 1999-2000, 2000- 01, 2002-03 and 2003-04 and in those years the assessment were reopened and the assessee had to file revised claims in pursuance of the notices issued u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act. In those years also the book results were rejected on the basis of the findings given in the A.Y. 2001-02. In sum and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The Learned Counsel has relied on the plethora of decisions in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no necessary for the Assessing Officer to reject the book results. The Learned Counsel argued that the Assessing Officer cannot recompute the segmental profits of the assessee without pointing out any specific defects in arriving at the profits year under consideration. He submits that the entire approach of the Assessing Officer is totally prejudicial and bassed the assessment for the A.Y. 2001-02. He pointed out that merely because in the particular year the books of account were rejected on certain defects then how the same defects ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iday unit. The observation and reasoning of the Assessing Officer are of the general in nature which are based on the A.Y. 2001-02 and on the basis of the A.Y. 2001-02, the assessments for the A.Y. 1999-2000 onwards were reopened on the same reasons that the profits of tax holiday unit are declared at higher side compared to the non-tax holiday unit. There is no proper allocation of the cost viz-a-viz profits percentage. In our opinion, if the book results in the particular year are rejected on pointing out specific defects which were demonstrated, then the Assessing Officer cannot carry the same reasoning for rejecting the book results in the subsequent years unless the Assessing Officer independently demonstrate that the defects in books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
