IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .ITA No.1094/Mds/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s Cenosphere India Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of 282, Linghi Chetty Street, v. Income Tax, Chennai - 600 001. Company Circle I(3), Chennai. PAN : AACCS 2764 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT Date of Hearing : 02.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016 ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of assessee is directed against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Chennai, dated 31.01.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07. 2 I.T.A. No.1094/Mds/14 2. only issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance of claim made by assessee under Section 10B of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Dr. Anita Sumanth, Ld.counsel for assessee, submitted that Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee under Section 10B of Act on ground that Export Oriented Unit was not approved by Board appointed by Central Government. In fact, according to Ld. counsel, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd. (2012) 27 taxmann.com 322. According to Ld. counsel, initially, approval was granted by Development Commissioner and subsequently it was rectified by Board. Therefore, Ld.counsel submitted that matter may be remitted back to file of Assessing Officer to re-examine matter in light of rectification by Board. 4. We have heard Shri Shiva Srinivas, Ld. Departmental Representative also. As rightly submitted by Ld.counsel for assessee, Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee under Section 10B of Act. bare reading of 3 I.T.A. No.1094/Mds/14 assessment order shows that Assessing Officer found that assessee converted its existing DTA unit into Export Oriented Unit. Assessing Officer has also found that industrial undertaking was in existence since 21.05.1998. However, in audit report, assessee indicated that first year of operation is assessment year 2005-06. In view of this factual situation, Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee. 5. On appeal by assessee, CIT(Appeals) observed that there was no material to suggest that Inter-Ministerial Committee or other agency nominated to perform duties of Board constituted under Section 14 of IDAR Act granted approval. Therefore, by placing reliance on judgment of Delhi High Court in Regency Creations Ltd. (supra), CIT(Appeals) confirmed order of Assessing Officer. 6. Now Ld.counsel for assessee claims that Board constituted under IDAR Act rectified decision of Development Commissioner, therefore, matter needs to be reconsidered by Assessing Officer. We find some force in submission of Ld.counsel for assessee. When assessee claims that Board constituted under Section 14 of IDAR Act rectified 4 I.T.A. No.1094/Mds/14 decision of approval granted by Development Commissioner, matter needs to be reconsidered by Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of authorities below are set aside and issue deduction under Section 10B of Act is remitted back to file of Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer shall re- examine issue afresh in light of material that may be filed by assessee and thereafter decide same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to assessee. 7. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th September, 2016 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (Abraham P. George) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member /Judicial Member Chennai, th Dated, 30 September, 2016. Kri. 5 I.T.A. No.1094/Mds/14 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A)-II, Chennai 4. CIT, Central-1, Chennai 5. /DR 6. GF. M/s Cenosphere India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-(3), Chennai