9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt Oriented Unit) EOU with Green Card. The Company is assessed to Income Tax by the respondent in file No.AACCP2308P. The Company has filed its return of income for the assessment years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. So far as accounting year ended on 31st March 2007 is concerned, the return was filed after admitting a total income of Rs. 33,88,540/- and after claiming exemption of Rs. 2,46,67,944/- under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 for the sixth year. Similarly, for the accounting year March 2008 return was filed after admitting a total income of Rs. 32,98,240/- and after claiming exemption of Rs. 1,92,42,955/- under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 for the seventh year. Likewise, for the accounting year March 2009, the return was filed after admitting a total income of Rs. 49,70,350/- after claiming exemption of Rs. 3,73,49,456/- under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 for the eighth year. The same were accepted under Section 143(1)(a) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Thereafter, each case was selected for a detailed scrutiny and an assessment was made under Section 143(3) on 24.11.2009 allowing recomputed exemption under Section 10B and determining the total inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and they are 100% Export Oriented Company. As per Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, it gives 100% exemption on total profit for Export Oriented Company. According to the respondents, the Company has not been approved by a Specified Authority as required under Explanation 2 under Section 10B. Therefore, the respondent is of the view that the petitioner company is not eligible for deduction under Section 10B. That is the reason why, the respondent had issued a notice to the Company. But the fact remains that the Company is approved by the Specified Authority. Therefore, the notice dated 27.03.2014 issued by the first respondent under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 18.02.2015 is liable to be set aside. 4.1. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming for a moment, in case approval is granted by the second respondent for EOU at a latter point of time, it will be considered valid once such an approval is ratified by the Board of Approval for EOU Scheme. Therefore, the reason assigned by the first respondent for reopening the assessment for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority from whom the petitioner firm obtained approval is not the Specified Authority / competent authority to grant approval for the purpose of Section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings was initiated under Section 147 of the Act. The first respondent also relied upon a judgment of CIT Vs Novopan India Ltd (AP) 236 ITR 746 to substantiate the contentions. In the case on hand, proper show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the exemption claimed under Section 10B should not be disallowed as the petitioner's company 100% EOU was not approved by the Specified Authority as required under clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Sec.10B and posted the hearing on 05.03.2015. After considering their explanations, it was rejected by the first respondent and posted the matter for further hearing. In the mean time, the petitioner company, without any substance, has filed the Writ Petitions. Eventually, the first respondent prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 6. At the time of filing the Writ Petitions, the Writ Petitioner has not impleaded the second respondent herein, who is the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lopment Commissioner in the case of a hundred percent export oriented unit will be considered valid once such an approval is ratified by the BOA for the EOU Scheme. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the reason assigned by the first respondent for reopening of the assessment order is not proper. Except to state that the EOU has not been approved by the Specific Authority, the first respondent has not assigned any other reason to reopen the assessment order. Since the said reason assigned by the first respondent is not legally correct, it is not open for reopening of assessment of the Company relating to the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Further, in the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no tangible evidence available against the petitioner so as to come the conclusion that there is an escapement of income of assessment and therefore, the first respondent cannot review his own order merely for the sake of reviewing. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Schwing Stetter India P.Ltd, (2015) 93 CCH 0112 ChenHC, wherein, in paragraph No.19, it has been held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
