DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PARADISE CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -I, Nashik dated 15.04.2013 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") pertaining to the assessment year 2009 -10.

(2.) BY way of the present appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: - -

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid operative part of the order of the CIT(A) reveals that he has considered the dispute in the context of section 10AA of the Act instead of the claim made by the assessee made in the return of income, which was u/s. 10A of the Act. In -fact, in the return of income, claim of the assessee was that his profits and gains derived from export of software was exempt in terms of section 10A of the Act as his unit was recognized as an STPI unit. The discussion by the CIT(A), on the other hand, reveals that he has considered the dispute in the context of section 10AA of the Act which essentially deals with newly established units in Special Economic Zones. Though, in the concluding para 5.3.2, CIT(A) has referred to section 10A of the Act, but the entire discussion in the earlier part of the order is in the context of section 10AA of the Act. In -fact, in the impugned order, CIT(A) has referred to the definition of 'Entrepreneur' in section 2(j) of the SEZ Act, 2005 which is relevant in the context of a claim u/s. 10AA of the Act and not u/s. 10A of the Act. Be that as it may, when the aforesaid position was pointed out to the Ld. Representative for the assessee, he fairly conceded that the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) were not in correct prospective inasmuch as the claim of the assessee was u/s. 10A of the Act and not u/s. 10AA of the Act.