TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first time in A.Y. 1997-98 and the same has been allowed. Therefore, without disturbing the relief granted in that year, the AO could not have denied the benefit for subsequent years. For 1998-99, the learned Senior Advocate has explained that assessee did not challenge the said order because assessee had got relief under Section 80HHE. For the subsequent two years, assessee has been given the relief. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO's view is perverse and not sustainable. Resultantly, this appeal merits consideration. - Income Tax Appeal No. 608 of 2016 C/W Income Tax Appeal No. 609 of 2016, 686 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar And Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.G. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed the deduction under Section 10A on the ground that the Mumbai Unit was started in A.Y. 1991-92 and therefore, A.Y. 2000-2001 was the last assessment year to claim exemption under Section 10A of the IT Act. 4. Shri. T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee submitted that the above finding of the AO is erroneous and perverse because, AO has misconstrued that the shifting of machinery from Mumbai to Bengaluru as shifting of Mumbai Unit. In A.Y. 1991-92, Mumbai unit was started and the Bengaluru unit was set-up in 1996-97 and this contention has been accepted by the CIT(A) (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)) in para 8 of his order and the said finding has attained finality. The CIT(A) having recorded this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t challenged by the assessee; and the Assessment Order for the year 1998-99 has attained finality. He submitted that the CIT(A) and the ITAT have rightly noticed that assessee was denied the benefit for the said year and accordingly not granted relief for A.Y. 2001-02 and subsequent years. Insofar as the argument of Shri. Suryanarayana that benefit was given for subsequent years namely, 1999-2000, 2000-01, he submitted that each years' assessment has to be considered independently. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore Vs. ACE Multi Axes Systems Ltd. [(2017)88 taxmann.com 69 (SC) (para 13)] 8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indeed noticed that the assessee was having its unit at Mumbai and accordingly granted benefit under Section 10A of the Act. The CIT(A) has recorded his finding at para 9 that the view taken by the AO that the 10 years period had expired from 1991-92 was incorrect. This finding has attained finality. We are satisfied that the contention urged by Shri. Suryanarayana that though benefit under Section 10A of the IT Act was denied for A.Y. 1998-99, the assessee did not choose to challenge the same, because, he had got substantial relief under Section 80HHE of the IT Act. We may record that the Revenue's next specific argument is, each assessment year are different. If this logic is applied, denial of benefit for 1998-99 cannot be treated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of different Assessment Years, there is some value to be placed on the need for uniformity even in tax adjudication .. 15. A combined reading of these two authorities make it clear that there cannot be uncertainty in the assessments for different years. Assessee sought deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act for the first time in A.Y. 1997-98 and the same has been allowed. Therefore, without disturbing the relief granted in that year, the AO could not have denied the benefit for subsequent years. 16. For 1998-99, the learned Senior Advocate has explained that assessee did not challenge the said order because assessee had got relief under Section 80HHE. For the subsequent two years, assessee has been given the relief. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
