9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that of earlier year nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. - ITA No. 1793/AHD/2013 (Asstt. Year: 2008-2009) - - - Dated:- 1-9-2021 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R. Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Baroda, dated 30/03/2013 (in short Ld. CIT(A) ) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act ) relevant to the Assessment Yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for ₹ 1,58,61,000/- by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 10A of the Act and that too after admitting the additional evidences. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and claim to be engaged in the business of development of website and providing Call Centre Back End Services under the name and style of IMAT GROUP . The assessee in the year under consideration has claimed deduction of ₹ 1,58,61,000/- under the provision of section 10A of the Act. 4.1 However, the AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee is not engaged in the activity of export of the website. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w provisions of STPI. (iii) The income of the undertaking is from exports which have been brought into India during the specified time. This is evident from the copies of FIRCs submitted by the appellant. (iv) The statements of Shri Vijay Parmar has no evidentiary value in view of the decisions of various High Courts/tribunals mentioned supra. 4. RESULT OF APPEAL: In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld. DR before us filed the additional evidences and requested to restore the issue to the file of the AO to decide the same a fresh in the light of these evidences. 8. On the other hand the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... group. Shri Vijay Parmar stated that he is looking after the operation. A further perusal of the statement shows that at every stage, the deponent accepted the business activities and explained in detail how the web portal of the assessee operates. 11.We also find that the software Technology Parks of India (An autonomous Society under Department of Information Technology), has issued a registration certificate to the assessee as exhibited at pages 41 to 51 of the paper book. 12.In the light of the nature of activities explained in the statement recorded during the course of the survey proceedings. Let us now consider the Notification No. 890(E) issued by the Government in reference to Section 10A(b)(i)(2), 10B(b)(i)(2) and 80H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g exemption u/s. 10A of the Act which triggered for her request of withdrawal of the claim of deduction. 14.In our understanding of the facts relating to the business activities of the assessee qua the statement recorded at the time of survey, the assessee under a mistaken belief has accepted to withdraw the claim of deduction which she was otherwise legally entitled. 15. It would be pertinent to refer to the observations of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat given in the case of S. R. Koshti in 276 ITR 165 and the same reads as under:- The authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961 are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is only in relation to the law and that too was under a wrong belief. As observed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), the ld. Commissioner should not have revised the completed assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. Commissioner further erred in directing the A.O. to withdraw the claim of deduction in subsequent assessment years also i.e. A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11. 17. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT ought to have verified independently the eligibility of the claim and the deduction permissible to the assessee. Considering the business activities of the assessee as explained during the course of the survey proceedings, in our understanding of the law, the assessee was very much eligible for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
