TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entitlement for claim of deduction u/s 10B - HELD THAT:- Issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by a series of binding judicial precedents including by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of PCIT vs. Zealous Web Technologies[2016 (4) TMI 255 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Once it is not in dispute, as the position is before us, that conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are in harmony with the binding judicial precedents, we see no reasons to interfere in the matter. The order of the CIT(A), granting relief on merits, is confirmed and approved. In effect thus our reversing the order of the CIT(A) on the reopening issue is of no practical use to the appellant, and the success on that point ends up being a hollow success. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order dated 21/01/2014, wherein total income was assessed at ₹ 43,23,238/- by disallowing exemption u/s.10B of ₹ 52,93,042/- allowed in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of IT Act. 2.3 Since, the appellant has specifically challenged the reopening of assessment, it will be appropriate to discuss the provisions of section 147 in detail. Unambiguous reading of section 147 reveals that requirements of section are asunder: (1) The Assessing Officer has reason to believe; (2) That an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (3) If four years have expired from the end of the relevant Asst Year, then such escapement was due to failure on the part of the assessee (i) to file a return u/s.139; (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment. In the instant case, reasons recorded as mentioned in para No.2.2 above, I do not find any reference to such failure on the part of the appellant to disclose any material facts necessary for assessment and in fact narration given in the reasons do not show any such failure which could be inferred even if not so mentioned specifically in the reasons. Perusal of assessment order dated 21/01/2014 reveals that the A.O. had disallowed exemption u/s.10B to the appellant. It is also a matter of fact that the appellant had claimed exemption u/s.10B and the same was allowed in the A.O. passed u/s:143(3) of I.T. Act. This way I am of the considered view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O. was satisfied with the submissions of the appellant and accordingly, accepted the exemption u/s.10B. As discussed above, even if the decision of accepting the deduction u/s.10B was wrong, the A.O. cannot revisit this decision and reopen the assessment u/s.147 of the I.T. Act. It is also held in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India (2002) 256 ITR 1 that the assessing officer is not allowed to change of opinion for the purpose of reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the I.T. Act. Appellant also submitted that it had been claiming deduction u/s.10B from A.Y. starting from 1999-2000 and the same had been allowed in assessment. Appellant relied on the decision of Saurashtra Cement Chemical Ind. Ltd. v/s ClT ITR 669) (Guj) in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grievance:- Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. 9. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by a series of binding judicial precedents including by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court s judgement in the case of PCIT vs. Zealous Web Technologies [(2016) 68 taxmann.com 379 (Guj.)] and by Ahmedabad C bench decision in the case of ITO vs. Mednautix Outsourcing Pvt Ltd and vice versa (ITA Nos. 617-619/Ahd/2015; Co Nos. 65-67/Ahd/2015; order dated 05.09.2017). Once it is not in dispute, as the position is before us, that conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
