Avalon Business Associates v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-14 & Anr
[Citation -2017-LL-1025-4]

Citation 2017-LL-1025-4
Appellant Name Avalon Business Associates
Respondent Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-14 & Anr.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/10/2017
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags income tax authorities • export oriented unit • development commissioner • power of commissioner
Bot Summary: The assessee is aggrieved by the invocation of power by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 263 was invoked primarily on the ground that the approval did not conform to the CBDT s circular dated 09.03.2009. At the outset, we notice that Enable Exports Ltd. itself took note of the circular of 09.03.2009, which in material particulars records as follows: The matter regarding validity of approvals given by Development Commissioner has been examined in the Board. It has been decided that an approval granted by the Development Commissioner in the case of a hundred percent export oriented unit will be considered valid, once such an approval is ratified by the Board of Approval for EOU scheme. Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned counsel for the assessee/appellant urged that the approval of the Development Commissioner ipso facto was sufficient having regard to the previous binding circulars of the concerned Ministry which were consistently applied by the CBDT in all Income Tax authorities. In particular, he relied upon the delegation of powers for automatic post approval amendments issued by the Department of Electronics. As to whether in fact there was no necessity for a further ratification, in the light of the appellant s contention that a general or a specific circular, which delegated the powers of the Board of Approvals, applied after the issuance of the 09.03.2009 circular, is however kept open for consideration.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 25.10.2017 ITA 892/2017 & CM No.38022/2017 M/S AVALON BUSINESS ASSOCIATES ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni with Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advs. versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14 & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel for ITD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER 25.10.2017 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, learned counsel for ITD accepts notice. 3. assessee is aggrieved by invocation of power by Commissioner under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as Act ). ITA No.892/2017 Page 1 4. AO, for relevant year i.e. 2011-12 had upheld assessee s contention with regard to applicability of Section 10B to its unit. Section 263 was invoked primarily on ground that approval did not conform to CBDT s circular dated 09.03.2009 (F.No.178/19/2008). 5. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that decision of Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Enable Exports (P.) Ltd. [2012] 17 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi) is conclusive and ITAT s reliance upon its subsequent ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Valiant Communications Ltd. (2013) 353 ITR 326 Del. deserves no consequence. It was highlighted that Valiant Communications Ltd. (supra) did not take into account relevant circulars of 2008-09 as well as decision in Enable Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra). 6. At outset, we notice that Enable Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) itself took note of circular of 09.03.2009, which in material particulars records as follows: matter regarding validity of approvals given by Development Commissioner has been examined in Board. It has been decided that approval granted by Development Commissioner in case of hundred percent export oriented unit will be considered valid, once such approval is ratified by Board of Approval for EOU scheme. [Emphasis supplied] ITA No.892/2017 Page 2 7. Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned counsel for assessee/appellant urged that approval of Development Commissioner ipso facto was sufficient having regard to previous binding circulars of concerned Ministry which were consistently applied by CBDT in all Income Tax authorities. In particular, he relied upon delegation of powers for automatic post approval amendments (press note No.5 of 1997 series) issued by Department of Electronics. 8. We have considered submissions. 9. invocation of Section 263 in opinion of this Court cannot be faulted. As to whether in fact there was no necessity for further ratification, in light of appellant s contention that general or specific circular, which delegated powers of Board of Approvals, applied after issuance of 09.03.2009 circular, is however kept open for consideration. In case such contention is urged by appellant before Income Tax authorities, same shall be considered on its own merits. 10. appeal is dismissed, subject to above observations. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 25, 2017 kks ITA No.892/2017 Page 3 Avalon Business Associates v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-14 & Anr
Report Error