Secova Eservices Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs Assessee

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, CHENNAI ी चं पज ू ार , लेखा सद य एवं ी वी. दग ु ा" राव, या#यक सद य के सम% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.558/Mds/2015 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/s. SECOVA e Services P. Ltd, The Deputy Commissioner of RR Tower III, Second floor, Vs Income Tax, TVK Industiral Estate, Corporate Circle 6(1), Guindy, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034.

[PAN: AAHCS 3174R] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate यथ क ओर से / Respondent by : Shri. S. Das Gupta, IRS, JCIT.

सन ु वाई क तार ख/Date of hearing : 30.04.2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, dated 27.02.2015

for the assessment year 2011-12.

2. The sole issue for our consideration in this appeal is with regard

to deduction u/s.10B of the Act.

:- 2 -: I.T.A.No.558/Mds/2015.

2.1 The brief facts of the case is that the assessee has filed this

appeal on denial of claim of deduction u/s.10B of the Act. The

Assessing Officer while denying the claim of deduction u/s.10B of the

Act, relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the

case of CIT vs. Regency Creation Limited reported a 27 taxmann.com

322 (Delhi). Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

3. The ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted

before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that it has got a

letter from the Assistant Development Commissioner of MEPZ-SEZ

wherein the decision of the unit approval committee was ratified by

Board of approval in its 4the meeting (2013 series). The Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the evidence brought before

him by the assessee in the form of letter dated 19.02.2014 is not

sufficient to grant deduction u/s.10B of the Act. The letter dated

19.02.2014 is a new evidence without petition for admitting as a new

evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Moreover, the

letter dated 19.02.2014 submitted before him did not make the

assessee eligible for the claim of deduction u/s.10B of the Act. The

assessee did not produce sufficient evidence to grant deduction

u/s.10B of the Act as required by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the :- 3 -: I.T.A.No.558/Mds/2015.

case of Regency creations limited in 27 taxmann.com 322(Delhi).

Hence, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the

ground of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before

us.

4. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in denying the claim of

deduction u/s.10B of the Act on mere technical ground that the

additional evidence was produced without petition for admission under

Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer has

denied the claim of deduction u/s.10B on the ground that the assessee

has not got the ratification by the board constituted as per the Act

whereas the Assessing Officer has granted deduction u/s.10B for the

Asst. Year 2010-11 in his assessment order dated 22.02.2014 and

hence the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have

directed the grant deduction u/s.10B. The Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the letter dated 19.02.2014 from

the Development Commissioner intimating the ratification of approval

from the Development Commissioner by the Board of Approval in its

4th meeting (2013 series) held on 30.08.2013 is not sufficient for

granting deduction u/s.10B of the Act. The action of the Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals) in not accepting the ratification of approval :- 4 -: I.T.A.No.558/Mds/2015.

from Development Commissioner by Board of Approval is unlawful and

unjustified and hence the same has to be set aside. The Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not to have upheld the re- computation

of the deduction u/s.10B of the Act by including the miscellaneous and

interest income as part of total turnover.

5. The Authorised Representative of the assessee also filed paper

book with the following documents:-

1. "Letter to DCIT dated 20.02.2014.

2. Letter from Ministry of Finance with regard to clarification of deduction u/s.10B.

3. Letter from MEPZ dated 19.02.2014.

4. Letter from Ministry of Commerce and Industry regarding approval of EOU scheme.

5. Reply dated 12.08.2013 to the assessee regarding application for permission under SEZs for setting up a service unit in MEPZ SEZ.

6. Approval granted by MEPZ dated 16.10.2003"

6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative

submitted that evidence brought on record is not sufficient to grant

deduction u/s.10B of the Act and hence it is to be rejected.

7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on

record. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the

assessee has produced documents whatever documents he has :- 5 -: I.T.A.No.558/Mds/2015.

produced before us in paper book. However, the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) declined to consider the same as there is no

petition for admitting as these fresh evidence. The Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) failed to point out discrepancies to assessee

when it was filed new evidence and he also refrained to consider the

same. It would have been appropriate had he pointed out the

discrepancies and given an opportunity to assessee to file an

application to admit fresh evidence. Instead of this, he outrightly

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice,

we are inclined to remit the entire issue back to the file of the

Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as he had no occasion to

consider the above documents as it was first time filed with

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer shall

re-decide the issue in the light of above documents as in para 5 after

giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.558/Mds/2015 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 22nd day of May, 2015, at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (वी. दग ु ा" राव) (चं पज ू ार ) V. DURGA RAO (CHANDRA POOJARI) या#यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai. #दनांक/Dated:22.05.2015. KV :- 6 -: I.T.A.No.558/Mds/2015.

आदे श क त&ल'प अ(े'षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ / Respondent 3. आयकर आय* ु त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय* ु त/CIT 5. 'वभागीय त न-ध/DR

6. गाड फाईल/GF.