TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 (1) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as held that once any provision is omitted from the statute book, the result is that it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and as such, the assessee is entitled for benefit of section 10A of the Act and section 10A(9) is not attracted in its case. Thus since the year under assessment falls in the unexpired period of 10 years, the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10A of the Act having been wrongly disallowed by the AO - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.5287/Del./2012 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2017 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri Amrit Lal, Senior DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, M/s. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2003-04 on the grounds inter alia that :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not deposited within the prescribed period. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 1,87,92,750/- u/s 10A of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 5,65,193/- i.e. disallowance of ₹ 5,48,462/- on account of late deposit of PF and ₹ 16,731/- on account of late deposit of ESI. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUNDS NO.1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1, 2.2 AND 3 : 5. Undisputedly, the assessee company was incorporated on 06.07.1995 and has started a new export unit in previous year relevant to AY 2000-01 which was registered with STPI on 28.03.2000. It is also not in dispute that AO disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee u/s 10A of the Act by merely relying upon assessment order for AY 2001-02 which was confirmed by CIT (A) who has relied upon the order passed by the Tribunal in asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.02.2000 Advance received from M/s Direct Credit Exchange Ltd, UK. This was first ever foreign exchange remittance in respect of export received by assessee. 07.02.2000 New EEFC account opened. 14.03.2000 Board resolution permitting authorized people to sign documents in connection with registration of export unit with STPI 16.03.2000 Application made to STPI Authority for approval. 3. 28.03.2000 Approval received from STPI Authority. 9. Now, the first question arises for determination of this case is :- as to whether assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act being a converted STPI unit from existing domestic unit? 10. This issue has already been dealt with by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2002-03 wherein the issue has been answered in favour of the assessee that even if, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that when a provision in a statute is omitted from the statute book, the result is that the said provision did not ever exist in the statute in the absence of any saving provision. Admittedly, there is no saving provision. Therefore, he submits that the approach of the Tribunal is correct and no case for interference is made out. 7. The Apex Court in the case of KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD., VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 2000 SC 811dealing with the effect of deletion of a provision in the statute is held at Para 38 as under: 38. The position is well-known that at common law, the normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this Rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years, the assessee is entitled for exemption of ₹ 1,87,92,750/- u/s 10A of the Act having been wrongly disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). So, findings of the ld. CIT (A) are hereby reversed. Grounds No.1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1, 2.2 and 3 are determined in favour of the assessee. GROUND NO.4 : 13. Assessee challenged disallowance of ₹ 5,48,462/- and ₹ 16,731/- on account of employees contribution towards PF and ESI respectively by the AO and affirmed by the CIT (A) on the grounds inter alia that the date of filing the return of income for AY 2003-04 was extended by the CBDT vide order dated 16.10.2003 from 31.10.2003 to 30.11.2003 and the payment made by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 2,63,477/- made on 14.11.2003 is well within the due date of filing the return; that under section 43B of the Act, assessee was entitled to deduction only if contribution was deposited on or before the due date given in the Provident Fund Act and vide amendment by Finance Act, 2003 applicable form 01.04.2004 i.e. for AY 2004-05 the deduction u/s 43B of the Act is allowed if the PF contribution is made before the due date of filing the return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
