9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder did not allow the claim of deduction made u/s 10B of the I.T.Act for a sum of Rs. 40,62,940 representing export proceeds which was not billed during the relevant assessment year and not brought to India within the stipulated time. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment completed u/s 143 r.w.s. 263 of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the issue on merits. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- "2. The Hon'ble ITAT has made out very clearly in the said order passed that the Assessing Officer shall examine the material on record independently without being influenced by any of the observations made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;) by the Commissioner of Income-tax was upheld. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Tribunal is on the validity of the proceedings conducted under section 263 of the Act and not on the non-consideration of unbilled revenue as export turnover for computation of deduction under section 10B of the Act. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that the order which was passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 on 30 December 2011, against which the appeal was filed with the CIT(A) on 02 February 2012, is no more a disputable order as the same has been nullified. The learned CIT(A) erroneously held that since the appeal filed before him was based on the nullified order, the said appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeds were within the timeline as prescribed by the competent authority, namely the Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') in Circular no 25 dated 01 November 2004, wherein it is specified that export proceeds of the STPI / EOU units should be brought into India within twelve months from the date of export. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the fact that the date of export, in the case of software exports, is deemed to be the date of invoice as per Regulation 9 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 as issued by the RBI. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the Appellant had repatriated the export proceeds within 12 months from the date of invoice and well within the time as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogies Ltd. [(2018) 93 taxmann.com 33 (SC)]. The learned Departmental Representative present relied on the finding of the Income-tax authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the view that the CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue raised before him on merits. The ITAT while confirming the jurisdictional of the Administrative CIT in passing the order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, had clarified that the issue raised on merits was left open and the Assessing Officer shall decide the same de hors the observations made by the administrative Commissioner in revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as follows:- "9. The Administrative Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
