9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, there can be no doubt that with the Assessee not having satisfied the mandatory requirement under Section 10B(5) of the Act of filing Form-56G, the exemption under Section 10B of the Act cannot be allowed. The question is accordingly answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Whether under the facts and circumstances there exists any issues to be decided by the Appellant Tribunal when the respondent himself settles the issue revising the Original assessment and original demand (U/s.156 of I.T. Act) ? - As regards the second question framed by this Court, Mr. Ray submitted that the Revenue had in fact given appeal effect to the order of the CIT(A) but failed to bring this to the notice to the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Tribunal was justified to reject the Tax Exemption claimed U/s.10(A) of the Act stating the reason that the appellant is not a unit under Special Economic Zone. (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances there exists any issues to be decided by the Appellant Tribunal when the respondent himself settles the issue revising the Original assessment and original demand (U/s.156 of I.T. Act) and in such circumstances whether the 2nd Appeal No.I.T.A.-50/CTK/2015 do not become infructuous. 3. On the same date, an interim order was passed staying the impugned demand under Annexure-8. 4. The background facts are that the Appellant/Assessee filed its E-return for the AY in question on 27th September, 2011 showing an income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back. 6. The appeal filed by the Assessee against the above assessment order was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals) by an order dated 13th November, 2014. According to the CIT(A), the Assessee, which had initially claimed deduction under Section 10A of the Act was forced to change tack and claimed exemption under Section 10B of the Act since Software Technology Park (STP) Units in order to avail the exemption would have to have approval of the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee of the Department of Electronics. It was held that the error committed by the Auditor of the Assessee in filing the wrong Form-56F was at best a technical error and there was no bar on the Assessee correcting a wrong claim made during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent/Department. 9. It must be noted at the outset that even before the AO, there was considerable confusion whether the Assessee was in fact claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act or Section 10B of the Act. Apparently, in the earlier AYs, the Assessee had claimed exemption only under Section 10B of the Act. However, for the AY in question, according to the Appellant, its Auditor wrongly filed Form-56F and thereby claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 10. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee was asked by the AO to file the tax computation sheet and also file a copy of the income tax return of the year from which it started claiming exemption under Section 10A of the Act. When those details were filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filling ITR which was done by outsider, the assessee company or its promoters/directors are not supposed to be penalized. Therefore, the assessee company sincerely requesting you to kindly considers the deduction/exemption u/s. 10B on the basis of the facts and objective of the company and not on the basis of technical mistake committed at the time filling of ITR and auditor certificate. 13. In other words, before the AO, the Assessee maintained that it was claiming exemption only under Section 10B of the Act and not Section 10A of the Act. 14. This claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act by the Assessee was disallowed by the AO for non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of filing Form-56G. This conclusion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim under Section 10A of the Act has not been correctly framed. In terms of the Proviso to Section 260A of the Act, this Court considers it necessary to reformulate Question No.(i) as under: Whether the Assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10B of the Act as claimed by it? 19. As far as the above question is concerned, there can be no doubt that with the Assessee not having satisfied the mandatory requirement under Section 10B(5) of the Act of filing Form-56G, the exemption under Section 10B of the Act cannot be allowed. The question is accordingly answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 20. As regards the second question framed by this Court, Mr. Ray submitted that the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
