TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 and quash the same. 2. All the three Writ Petitions have been filed for each of the different assessment year. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company (for short 'the Company') registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of ready-made garments and export the same. The said Company is an approved 100% (Export 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 ₹ 33,88,540/- and after claiming exemption of ₹ 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 ₹ 32,98,240/- and after claiming exemption of ₹ 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 (SC)]. However, the Assessing Officer has passed an order dated 18.02.2015 rejecting the objections of the Company and posted the case for hearing and asked for further particulars in a format, which was not received by the Company. In the above background, the present Writ Petitions have been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in all the Writ Petitions the petitioner company is a manufacturer of ready-made garments 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there is no notification or official document suggesting that either the Inter Ministerial Committee or any other officer or agency was nominated to perform the duties of the Board (constituted under Section 14 of the IDR Act) for the purpose of approval under Section 10B. Further, the petitioner during the assessment proceedings had submitted the approval from the authority for the claim of exemption under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, but the authority 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atification and position. 8. Therefore, the reading of the counter affidavit of the second respondent would show that already approval granted by the Development Commissioner for the petitioner unit is considered valid once such an approval is ratified by the Board of Approval for the Export Oriented Unit Scheme. Further, as per the instruction No.2/2009 dated 9.3.2009 and in the Corrigendum F.No.178/19/2008-ITA-1 dated 08.05.2009 approval granted by the Development 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
