TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for. The order of the AO u/s 143(3) clearly suffers from lack of inquiry and application of mind. AO has clearly failed to discharge its quasi-judicial functions while framing the assessment order. Such an assessment order is thus clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The reply received by the AO from SEZ authority in response to Section 133(6) was towards its competence to implement EOU Scheme and issue of letter of permission of STP Scheme in place of its issuance by BOA (Board of Approval). The reply was made to explain the delegation of powers to the Directors of STP Schemes and ratification of such approvals by the competent authority. The inquiry was made on only one limited aspect of the matter loos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT has grievously erred in law and or on facts in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 2.1 The Ld. CIT has grievously erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant had claimed exemption u/s 10A which was not admissible for this year. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT ought not to have held that the appellant had claimed exemption u/s 10A. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of software development and IT/ITES services. The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming exemption of ₹ 1,10,30,619/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has been carefully considered, keeping in view the facts of the case, the evidences available on record. The contentions raised by assessee are not acceptable due to the following reasons. (i) Perusal of the audit report now submitted by the authorized representative of the assessee reveals that the report is given for section 10A of the I T Act, whereas in the return of income as well as assessment order, the section which has been quoted is section 10AA. (ii) The requirements, purpose, conditions of both these sections are different and the one cannot be equated to another, nor can the report for one be acceptable in place of the other. (iii) The last year in which deduction could be claimed under section 10A was Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tset submitted that the ingredients of Section 263 of the Act are not fulfilled and therefore, the Pr.CIT has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction conferred under s.263 of the Act. The learned AR submitted that the assessment order which is subject matter of revision by the Pr.CIT is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The learned AR pointed out that the relevant form no.56F as well as approval letter from SEZ authority was presented in the proceedings under s.263 of the Act and therefore, the Pr.CIT was not justified in interfering with the deduction allowed by the AO in the regular assessment. The learned AR also submitted that information was called for under s.133(6) from SEZ authority (Software Technology Park ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke any inquiry in this regard. The form ultimately filed before the Pr.CIT was also found with reference to Section 10A in place of Section 10AA of the Act. Thus, the prescribed form presumably directory in nature, as claimed by the assessee has not been placed on record to appreciate the correctness of deduction claimed. The approval of the SEZ authority likewise was also not placed before the AO nor asked for. Thus, the order of the AO under s.143(3) of the Act clearly suffers from lack of inquiry and application of mind. The AO has clearly failed to discharge its quasi-judicial functions while framing the assessment order. Such an assessment order is thus clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 8. At this sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
