JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by M. R. Shah J.-Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order passed by learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dated September 30, 2014, in I. T. A. No. 1581/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 by which learned Tribunal has dismissed said appeal preferred by Revenue and has confirmed order passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10B of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Revenue has preferred present tax appeal with following proposed substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting disallowance of deduction under section 10B of Income-tax Act made by Assessing Officer by admitting additional evidence in form of approval granted by Board of Approval (BOA) to alleged export oriented unit? (B) Whether Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepting approval of Board of Approval with retrospective effect despite fact that approval of Board of Approval was granted after three years of filing return of income by assessee and after completion of assessment?" facts leading to present tax appeal in nut-shell are as under: (2.1) assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2007-08 showing total income as Rs. 54,12,637. assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of Act amounting to Rs. 16,62,80,893. assessee was asked to furnish details in respect of claim made for deduction under section 10B of Act and was asked to furnish as to whether approval was accorded by Board of Approval (BOA) as stipulated in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 10B of Act. In reply of which assessee furnished necessary details and submitted approval granted by Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with same and on interpretation of Circular/instruction issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 9, 2009, Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 10B of Act on ground that if approval granted by Development Commissioner is ratified by Board of Approval, assessee shall be entitled to deduction under section 10B of Act and Board's instructions are clarificatory in nature and same is retrospective in nature. On appeal before learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on true interpretation of Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction dated March 9, 2009, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted such disallowance and held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B of Act as not only there was approval given by Development Commissioner but same was also subsequently ratified by Board of Approval. On appeal filed by Revenue before learned Tribunal, by impugned judgment and order, learned Tribunal has dismissed said appeal confirming order passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order passed by learned Tribunal, Revenue has preferred present tax appeal with aforesaid proposed substantial questions of law. Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Revenue, has vehemently submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in relying upon instruction/circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 9, 2009. It is submitted that by circular/instruction dated March 9, 2009, it was clarified that "now permission granted by Development Commissioner approved by Board of Approval can be considered as valid for purpose of deduction under section 10B of Act". It is submitted that, in present case, admittedly permission of Development Commissioner was ratified by Board of Approval subsequently and, therefore, it can be said that on basis of permission granted by Development Commissioner alone, at relevant time, assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 10B of Act as claimed. It is, therefore, submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in not properly appreciating and/or interpreting Circular/Instruction of Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 9, 2009. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow present tax appeal. present tax appeal is opposed by Shri B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of assessee. He has placed heavy reliance upon subsequent clarificatory circular/instruction by Export Promotion Council for EOUS and SEZS dated May 14, 2009, by which Circular/Instruction of Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 9, 2009, came to be further clarified. It is submitted that as so observed in circular/instruction of Export Promotion Council for EOUS and SEZS dated May 14, 2009, that from 1990 onwards Board of Approval has delegated power of approval of 100 per cent. export oriented unit to Development Commissioner, it is submitted that, therefore, at relevant time when Development Commissioner granted permission/ approval of 100 per cent. export oriented unit, Development Commissioner exercised delegated power. It is submitted that, therefore, approval granted by Development Commissioner was not required to be ratified as Development Commissioner exercised delegated powers. It is submitted that in any case, in present case, Board of Approval did ratify decision of Development Commissioner. It is submitted that, therefore, when Board of Approval ratified decision of Development Commissioner granting approval of 100 per cent. export oriented unit to assessee, Board of Approval ratified decision of Development Commissioner ab initio. It is submitted that, therefore in that case also learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as learned Tribunal have rightly held that on basis of approval granted by Development Commissioner, which was subsequently ratified by Board of Approval, assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B of Act as claimed. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss present tax appeal. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. At outset, it is required that assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of Act claiming 100 per cent. export oriented unit. It is admitted position that there was already permission/ approval granted by Development Commissioner declaring/approving assessee as 100 per cent. export oriented unit. However, on considering word, approved by Board of Approval as mentioned in section 10B of Act and at relevant time there was no ratification of decision of Development Commissioner by Board of Approval, Assessing Officer denied deduction under section 10B of Act. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that, vide Circular/instruction of Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 9, 2009, it was clarified that approval granted by Development Commissioner in case of export oriented unit set up in export processing zone will be considered valid, once such approval is ratified by Board of Approval for Export Oriented Unit Scheme. In present case, it is not in dispute that permission/approval granted by Development Commissioner has been ratified by Board of Approval, may be subsequently. moment decision/approval of Development Commissioner is ratified by Board of Approval it will relate back to date on which approval was granted by Development Commissioner. If that be so, it cannot be said that assessee was not export oriented unit, which was entitled to deduction under section 10B of Act. Incidentally it is to be noted that in subsequent circular No. 68 issued by Export Promotion Council for EOUS and SEZS, dated May 14, 2009, it mentions that from 1990 onwards Board of Approval had delegated power of approval of 100 per cent. to Development Commissioner and, therefore, it can be very well argued and said that Development Commissioner while granting approval of 100 per cent. export oriented unit exercises delegated powers. In any case and apart from above when it is found that at relevant time Development Commissioner granted approval of 100 per cent. export oriented unit in favour of assesseecompany, which came to be subsequently ratified by Board of Approval and as observed hereinabove as such ratification shall be from date on which Development Commissioner granted approval, both learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as learned Tribunal have rightly held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B of Act as claimed. We confirm view taken by both authorities below holding that assessee was entitled to 100 per cent. EOU as claimed. No substantial question of law arises in present tax appeal. Hence, present tax appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. *** Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. ECI Technologies Pvt. Ltd