TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction u/s 10B only. If the assessee entitled for deduction u/s 10A instead of 10B, that claim required to be examined by the assessing officer in all fairness. The issue of allowance of deduction u/s 10A though assessee made a claim before the lower authorities has not examined by the assessing officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it shall be in the interest of justice to set aside the issue in the grounds of appeal of the assessee to the file of assessing officer with a direction to decide the issue in accordance with law The assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA No.1057/H/2010, SA No.56/H/2010 Arising out in ITA No.1057/H/2010 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2011 - SH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that there was a wrong claim by the assessee u/s 10B instead of 10A in the return of income. This has been accepted by the department from the assessment years 2003-04 upto 2006-07. In these years, the assessments were made u/s 143(3) of the Act. Only in this assessment years 2007-08 the claim of the assessee was denied. 5. The learned representative for the assessee argued that the assessing officer should have brought to the notice of the assessee that the claim was made in the wrong form and should have advised it to rectify the same, as the department itself had been accepting such claim for last several years. He averred that the assessing officer ignored the Circular No.14(XL-35) dated 11.4.1995 in this regard. He also cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) 5. CIT Vs. Khaitan Chemicals Fertilizers (38 DTR 86) (Del.) 6. CIT Vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (38 DTR 80) 7. CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Textiles Ltd. (66 ITR 710 ) (SC) 8. CIT Vs. Vally Cotton Traders (P) Ltd. (288 ITR 400) 8. He also relied on following orders of the Tribunal: 1. Order dated 11.9.2009 in the case of Our Web Studio Software Solutions (P) Ltd., for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No.671/H/2009 A Bench (Hyd.) 2. ITO Vs. Hotline KG Information Ltd. (131 TTJ 216) (Agra.) 3. ITO Vs. Tamilnadu Mineral Ltd. (124 ITD 156) (rd Member) (Chen.) 9. On the other hand the learned departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptance of the claim and omission to look into a claim. In earlier year there may be non examination of the issue that itself does not entitle to the assessee to grant relief as it is in the assessment year under consideration. He submitted that the various case law cited by the assessee s counsel cannot be applied to the present fact of the case. In those cases which are relied upon by the learned AR is to the effect that even if no formal claim was made in the return, it should be granted if necessary particulars available on record. This stand would have been correct but only if required conditions prescribed in law are satisfied. There is nothing to suggest that exports and furnishing of Form 56F/56G are the only prescribed parameters. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g deduction u/s 10B. The assessee s counsel further argued that the assessee has fulfilled all the requirements of provisions of Section 10A. However, this claim of the assessee not examined by the lower authorities and they stick to one contention that the assessee claim u/s 10B is not allowable. We are agreeing with the department that the condition for allowance of deduction u/s 10A and 10B are stood on different footing. However, the department cannot thrust upon the assessee to avail deduction u/s 10B only. If the assessee entitled for deduction u/s 10A instead of 10B, that claim required to be examined by the assessing officer in all fairness. The issue of allowance of deduction u/s 10A though assessee made a claim before the lower au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
