Itta/353/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Icsa (India) Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 353 of 2014 Date: 12.06.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II,IT Towers, AC Guards,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s.ICSA (India) Limited,Plot No.12, 1[st] floor, Software Units Layout,Cyberabad, Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMARI.T.T.A. No. 353 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 22.1.2014 in relation tothe assessment year 2009-10. We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant, and he wants that this appeal should be admitted on thefollowing suggested questions of law: (i)In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theTribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in declining to entertain theground of the appeal raised by the Revenue with regard togranting of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act,when the respondent-assessee failed to comply the requirementunder proviso to Section 10A(1A) of the Act merely the saidissue was not a ground in the appeal before the learnedCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ignoring the fact that theappeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was by the respondent-assessee but not by theRevenue?Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in declining to entertain theground of the appeal raised by the Revenue with regard togranting of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act,when the respondent-assessee failed to comply the requirementunder proviso to Section 10A(1A) of the Act merely the saidissue was not a ground in the appeal before the learnedCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ignoring the fact that theappeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was by the respondent-assessee but not by theRevenue? (ii)In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theTribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the claim underSection 10A of the Act when the respondent-assessee did notcomply the requirement under proviso to Section 10A (1A) of theAct?Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the claim underSection 10A of the Act when the respondent-assessee did notcomply the requirement under proviso to Section 10A (1A) of theAct? After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going throughthe impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, the undisputed fact is that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 in the returns. However, supporting documentcould not be filed at the time of the assessment. Hence, the claim forexemption was disallowed. The matter was taken to the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), before whom at the time of hearing of the appeal,necessary certificate was produced. Therefore, the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), who received the document, remanded the matterto the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to take note of thecertificate and examine the veracity of the same and grant exemption. The question was whether at the appellate stage any document couldbe received by the appellate authority or not. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, is notdisputing that in a fit case on production of genuine and valid certificate,exemption can be granted. In our view, the appellate authority has co-extensive power with that ofthe Assessing Officer and the principle of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code ofCivil Procedure for receiving additional evidence is to be applied indeedrightly applied. When a document was received and it was sent back forconsideration to the authority below, it is a lawful exercise of power andthere is no other issue. The question was whether at the appellate stage any document couldbe received by the appellate authority or not. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, is notdisputing that in a fit case on production of genuine and valid certificate,exemption can be granted. In our view, the appellate authority has co-extensive power with that ofthe Assessing Officer and the principle of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code ofCivil Procedure for receiving additional evidence is to be applied indeedrightly applied. When a document was received and it was sent back forconsideration to the authority below, it is a lawful exercise of power andthere is no other issue. However, Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, the learned counsel for theappellant, wants to make it an issue with the aforesaid suggested questionof law taking advantage of redundant recording of the Tribunal inparagraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment. We are of the view thatrecording of the above paragraphs is surplasage and unnecessary. Therefore, those two paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment aredeemed to have been deleted as the core issue has been decided by theTribunal. We accordingly affirm the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly is dismissed. There will be no order asto costs. Dt. 12.06.2014GBS/bnr ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________SANJAY KUMAR, J