Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.4. The Ld AO and the honorable DRP have erred in law and on facts in holding that Unit 2 is a result of splitting up and reconstruction of Bangalore Unit 1 ("Unit 1 "), as envisaged under section 1 OA(2)(ii) of the Act.

4.5. The Ld AO and the honorable DRP have erred in law and on facts in holding that in the absence of "endorsed" softex forms and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates ("FIRC"), none of the export invoices could have been considered as being realized by the Appellant, disregarding the fact that actual realization of exports was evidenced by the Bank statements.

6.4 Being aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR contended that the main allegation of the AO to deny the deduction u/s 10A of the Act for the new Bangalore Unit-2 is that the Unit was formed by Splitting up / reconstruction of the existing unit since the softex forms had the address of the Unit-1, based on information received from the STPI authorities. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has taken steps to rectify the errors in the softex forms, which had crept in inadvertently. Given that the STPI Authorities have corrected the errors / updated the address in the softex forms filed, the assessee is entitled to appropriate relief u/s 10A of the Act, which has been denied by the A.O. In this context, the learned AR placed reliance on the additional evidence submitted which is the letter dated 4th November, 2019 issued by the STPI Authorities rectifying the error in the address mentioned in the softex forms submitted and certified for Unit-I which were supposed to be for Unit-2 for the assessment year 2009-2010 along with annexure of the list of softex certified by the STPI authorities. The learned IT(TP)A Nos.130 & 121/Bang/2014.

(c) The next major mistake pointed out by the A.O. is that the Softex forms approved by STPI have reference of Unit-1 only and not unit-2. The Ld. A.R. submitted that various Softex forms issued by STPI authorities consisted of many mistakes. Hence the assessee has got majority of Softex forms corrected and the copies of those corrected forms have been given as additional evidence. He submitted that additional evidence furnished by the assessee is almost equivalent to 73%. He submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A in respect of the profits derived by Unit-2 only. The Ld. A.R further submitted that the assessee could not obtain corrected copies of all Softex forms. He further submitted that majority of the forms have been IT(TP)A Nos.130 & 121/Bang/2014.

M/s Dell International Services India Pvt.Ltd.

furnished. He also submitted that more than 10 years have elapsed and there exists practical difficulty in getting all the forms corrected. Accordingly he prayed that the A.O. may be directed to take a liberal view on this issue. We notice that the assessee has furnished corrected Softex forms in respect of unit-2 as additional evidences before us and they constitute about 73% of the aggregate number of forms. These additional evidences require examination at the end of the A.O. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for examining the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Considering the time period that has elapsed till date and the attached practical difficulties, we suggest that the A.O. may take a liberal view in respect of Softex forms.