LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-290

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BULLET INTERNATIONAL

Decided On March 21, 2012
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
V/S
Bullet International Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act, 1961") against the order dated May 25, 2009, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench "A", New Delhi (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 1085/Del/2008. The matter relates to the assessment year 2004 -05. During the course of the assessment year 2004 -05, the assessee claimed exemption under section 10A of the Act, 1961. The said exemption was denied by the Assessing Officer by the order dated December 29, 2006, on the ground that the assessee was earlier a proprietorship concern, but during the previous year, it has been converted into a partnership firm. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, vide order dated December 31, 2007. Thereafter, both the assessee as well as the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated at the Bar that the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal holding that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 10A of the Act, 1961. Against the order of the Tribunal, it appears that a defective appeal was preferred before this court being I.T.A. No. 269 of 2008. The said appeal has been dismissed as barred by time. Subsequently, the appeal preferred by the Department came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the order under appeal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Department by following its earlier order passed in the case of the asses -see's appeal.

(2.) HEARD Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri D.M. Sinha, learned counsel for the assessee -respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Department submits that in view of section 10A sub -sections (9) and (9A) of the Act, 1961, the order of the Tribunal is incorrect and a substantial question of law with regard to interpretation of section 10A of the Act, 1961, is involved in the appeal.