Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Annik Technology (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 November, 2010
ITA NO.1 58/DEL/2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "A" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 158/Del/2011
A.Y. : 2007-08
Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s Annik Technology (P) Ltd., A-
Ward 1(4), Room No. 380B, 16/9, Vasant Vihar,
CR Bldg., IP Estate, New Delhi - 57
New Delhi (PAN/GIR NO. : AAFCA5135Q)
(Appellant ) (Respondent )
Asseessee by : Sh. Vikas Srivastava, Adv.
Department by : Smt. Geetmala Mohananey,
C.I.T. (D.R.)
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 04.11.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08.
2. The issue raised is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of the issue of claim of deduction u/s 10A amounting to ` 2,62,19,240/- ignoring that since the assessee did not fulfil the condition prescribed in section 10A(2)(i)(a),(b),(c) of the IT Act, 1961, the benefits of the section cannot be given to the assessee.
1ITA NO.1 58/DEL/2011
3. In this case, the Assessing Officer had denied the assessee claim of section 10A for the reasons that assessee was carrying the business from Shivalik Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, which was not falling under the Free Trade Zone.
4. Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that tribunal in assessee's own case has considered the issue of section 10A deduction for assessment year 2005-06 (when assessee was a firm) and held as under:-
"5. In the light of this finding of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that only 7 day time was given to the assessee to obtain the certificate which is not sufficient, we are of the considered opinion that additional evidence was rightly admitted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In view of this, ground no. 1 of the revenue is rejected. Regarding ground no. 2 of the revenue, we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has reproduced the contents of letter dated 12.3.2008 from STPL which is as under:-
"The LOP issued by STPL is in order with regard to the scope of services. The scope of services include Software Development and IT Enabled Services also. This is on the basis of the Project Report and the Application made by your for STPL registration.2
ITA NO.1 58/DEL/2011 You may therefore take up the matter with Income Tax Authorities and submit a copy of this letter to the Income Tax Authorities.
We would like to clarify once again the item of manufacture "Computer Software", as mentioned in LOP issued includes Software Development and IT Enabled Services with effect from the date of LOP i.e. 14.3.2002. Further we confirm that the activities in which the unit is engaged, including the export earnings, from the date of the LOP confirm to the permission granted under the LOP.
This is being issued with the approval of competent authority.
(M.P. Dubey) Jt. Director"
6. After reproducing the contents of this letter dated 12.3.08, it has been noted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that as per this letter of STPL, manufacture of 'computer software' includes software development and IT enabled services, which is the activity of the assessee and in view of this, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the issue involved in ground no. 2 of the 3 ITA NO.1 58/DEL/2011 revenue's appeal. We, therefore, reject this ground also.
7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed."
4.1 Considering the above, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that for assessment year 2005-06 the tribunal had decided to give the benefits of section 10A to the assessee in an earlier assessment year. By the Rules of Consistency, there can be no doubt that the matter stands settled in favour of the assessee.
5. Against this order the revenue is in appeal before us.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. It transpires that in assessee's own case earlier the tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has followed the same. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/7/2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
[R.P. TOLANI] [SHAMIM YAHYA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date 28/7/2011
SRB
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT
TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches 4