Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

So, we are of the opinion that Board has ratified the approval of 100% EOU which is not disputed by the Revenue. The decision of ECI Technologies Pvt. Ltd (cited supra) has dealt on the issue were the approval of Development Commissioner was ratified by the Board of Approval shall relate back to the approval of Development Commissioner. In the present case, the ld. Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under the Act and the assessee company is 100% EOU doing business of manufacture and export of marbles and granites. The ld. Assessing Officer has also interpreted the explanation that the approval should be 100% EOU by the Board appointed on behalf of Central Government and is of the view that Development Commissioner letter of the MEPZ SEZ dated 27.03.2014 regarding ratification is not prescribed one as per provisions of Sec. 10B of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has not made any independent investigation or adduce any evidence with authentic proof that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.10B of the Act. Further, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rejected the additional evidence produced under provisions of Rule 46A in the appellate proceedings irrespective of the fact that sufficient cause was explained for not filing in assessment proceedings. Now the question arise, the ld. Assessing Officer or ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had never verified the credible evidence and documents which are vital for claim of the assessee company. We respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M/s. Severn Glocon (India) Pvt. Ltd (cited supra) remit the disputed issue to the file of Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue afresh considering approval of the board and pass the order and the assessee :- 13 -: ITA Nos. 1373 to 1376/Mds/17.