TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2000-01 to 2009-10. The Assessing Officer has also found that the assessee obtained approval as 100% Export Oriented Unit on 16.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee can claim only from assessment year 2005-06 till 2009-10. The assessee’s main contention is that there are two amendments to Section 10B of the Act one made in the year 2008 and another in the year 2009. It is not in dispute that the Sunset Clause for exemption was extended. In view of the confusion in the mind of taxpayer and officers, the CBDT also clarified by issuing circular. Therefore, it is a case of misunderstanding the statutory provision by the assessee and the officers. The assessee understood the provision of exemption under Section 10B of the Act in a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivated carbon, which is used in industrial applications. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, found that the assessee commenced production from 25.11.1999 and the qualifying ten years period commences from the assessment year 2000-01 and ends with assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, during the year under consideration, the assessee is not eligible for any deduction under Section 10B of the Act. Moreover, the assessee was approved as 100% Export Oriented Unit on 16.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act from the assessment year 2005-06 till 2009- 10. Therefore, the claim made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the assessee commenced the production. Referring to Finance Act, 2009, the Ld.counsel submitted that the Sunset Clause for units in free trade zones was extended from the assessment year 2010-11 to assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, there was a misconception of provisions of Section 10A and 10B of the Act in view of Finance Act, 2009. After seeing the Board s circular in Circular No.1 of 2005, the assessee withdrew the claim made under Section 10B of the Act. The assessee was initially eligible for exemption under Section 10B of the Act. Proviso to Section 10B(1) of the Act was amended twice once by Finance Act, 2008 and once by Finance Act, 2009. The assessee also made the claim till assessment year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee for exemption under Section 10B of the Act cannot be construed to be furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing any part of income of the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act mainly on the ground that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income by claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the particulars of income. Claim under Section 10B of the Act is a statutory claim under the scheme of Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer found that the manufacturing activity of the assessee was commenced from the assessment year 2000-01. Therefore, the assessee, at the best, can make claim under Section 10B of the Act from the assessment year 2000-01 to 2009-10. The Assessing Officer has also found that the assessee obtained approval as 100% Export Oriented Unit on 16.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee can claim only from assessment year 2005-06 till 2009-10. The assessee s main contention is that there are two amendments to Section 10B of the Act one made in the year 2008 and another in the year 2009. It is not in dispute that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn any income by way of dividend from those shares. The assessee claimed disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that entire details were given in writing and there was no concealment of income nor any inaccurate particulars of such income were furnished. In those factual circumstances, the Apex Court held that mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars. 11. Moreover, there was a real confusion as stated above in view of extension of Sunset Clause and amendment made in Finance Act, 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
