Invitrogen Bioservices India Pvt. Ltd.,, Bangalore v. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 868/BANG/2016 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 86821114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AABCI3134K
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 868/BANG/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Invitrogen Bioservices India Pvt. Ltd.,, Bangalore
Respondent Pr. CIT, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 28-02-2019
First Hearing Date 17-10-2019
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 27-04-2016
Judgment Text
ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : B BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI JUDICAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 868 & 869 (BANG)/201 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 07 - 08 & 2008 - 09 ) M/S INVITROGEN BIO - SCIENCES INDIA PVT.LTD. FIRST TECHNOLOGY PLACE 3 EPIP GROUND FLOOR WHITEFIELD BANGALORE - 560 0 66 PAN NO.A ABCI3134K APPELLANT THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA 6 TH BLOCK BANGALORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHARATH RAO CA REVENUE BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 1 0 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 - 10 - 2019 O R D E R PER SMT BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER : PRESENT APPEALS HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 30/03/ 20 16 PASSED BY LD.CIT - 3 BANGALORE UNDER SECTION 263 FOR ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.868/B/2016 (ASSE SSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08) THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREINAFTER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX BENGALURU 3 BENGALURU (`CIT') IS BAD IN LAW AND / OR VOID AB INITIO AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED OCTOBER 31 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER (`A0') IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE REVISI ON OF ORDERS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE (SUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONDUCTED INADEQUATE ENQUIRY OR THERE WAS A LACK OF ENQUIRY) HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE BEL OW MENTIONED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (DELHI HIGH COURT)] VEGESINA KAMALA VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER [(2016) 157 ITD 457 (VISAKHAPATNAM - TRIB.)] ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 3 5. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B WITH RESPECT TO THE BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION AFTER VERIFYING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND ELIGIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE APPROVA L OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE ('CSEZ') WITH RESPECT TO SETTING UP OF 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT (`EOU') FOR MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS AND BIOINFORMATICS CHEMISTR Y. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS (I.E. APPROVAL LETTER DATED MARCH 10 2005 CSEZ AND APPROVAL FOR LICENSE FOR PRIVATE BONDED WAREHOUSE DATED APRIL 12 2005 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS) W AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE SUBMISSION DATED JANUARY 05 2016 8 THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ENABLE EXPORTS [(2012) 17 TAXMANN.COM 182 (DE LHI HIGH COURT) . WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF EOU IS VALID FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 9. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. THE SAID FACT IS ESTABLISHED BY EXHIBIT A TO THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED JANU ARY 01 2005 READ WITH ADDENDUM EFFECTIVE FROM APRIL 01 2008 ENTERED ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 4 INTO BETWEEN INVITROGEN CORPORATION AND THE APPELLANT (`THE R & D AGREEMENT') WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DE VELOPMENT. 10. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FACT THAT THE REPLY PROVIDED BY THE CSEZ HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF R & D SERVICES IN THE AREA OF BIOINFORMATICS CHEMISTRY WHICH IS FURTHER ESTABLISHED BY THE FACT THAT THE EXHIBIT A TO THE R & D AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. 11. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE CIRCULAR NO. 01/2013 DATED JANUARY 13 2013 ISSUE D BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. WHICH CLARIFIES THAT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COVERED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'COMPUTER SOFTWARE' AND ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 12. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE RESULT OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA IS NOTHING BUT THE SOFTWARE (I.E. VECTOR NTI ADVANCE) WHICH IS DEVELOPED BY THE APPELLANT IN INDIA. 13 THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DOCUMENTS (SUCH AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT THE EARNINGS OF THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO THE ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 5 SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY FOREIGN INWARD REMITTANCE CERTIFICATE (TIRO') EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPED BY THE BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA R& D AGREEMENT) SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPED IN INDIA IS ACTUALLY EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA. 14. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT INCLUDES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE WHICH SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FIELD OF BIOINFORMATICS THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER RESCIND AND MODIF Y THE GROUNDS HEREIN ABOVE OR PRODUCE FURTHER DOCUMENTS FACTS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. FOR THE ABOVE AND ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT NECESSARY RELIEF MAY BE PROVIDED ITA NO.869/B/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09) THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREINAFTER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 6 THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX BENGALURU 3 BENGALURU ('CIT') IS BAD IN LAW AND / OR VOID AB INITI O AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED OCTOBER 31 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO') IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE REVISION OF ORDERS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE (SUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONDUCTED INADEQUATE ENQUIRY OR THERE WAS A LACK OF ENQUIRY) HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE BELOW M ENTIONED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (DELHI HIGH COURT)] VEGESINA KAMALA VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER [(2016) 157 ITD 457 (VISAKHAPATNAM - TRIB.)] 5 THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B WITH RESPECT TO THE BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 7 AFTER VERIFYING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND ELIGIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (`CSEZ') WITH RESPECT TO SETTING UP OF 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT (EOU') FOR MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS AND BIOINFORMATICS CHEMISTRY. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS (I.E. APPROVAL LETTER DATED MARCH 10 2005 CSEZ AND APPROVAL FOR LICENSE FOR PRIVATE BONDED WAREHOUSE DATED APRIL 12 2005 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS) WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE APPELLANT VIDE SUBMISSION DATED MARCH 29 2016. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ENABLE EXPORTS [(2012) 17 TAXMANN.COM 182 (DELHI HIGH COURT) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF EOU IS VALID FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 9. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. THE SAID FACT IS ESTABLISHED BY EXHIBIT A TO THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED JANU ARY 01 2005 READ WITH ADDENDUM EFFECTIVE ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 8 FROM APRIL 01 2008 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN INVITROGEN CORPORATION AND THE APPELLANT (`THE R & D AGREEMENT') WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DE VELOPMENT. 10. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FACT THAT THE REPLY PROVIDED BY THE CSEZ HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF R & D SERVICES IN THE AREA OF BIOINFORMATICS CHEMISTRY. WHICH IS FURTHER ESTABLISHED BY THE FACT THAT THE EXHIBIT A TO THE R & D AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. 11. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING. THE CIRCULAR NO. 01/2013 DATED JANUARY 13 2013 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES WHICH CLARIFIES THAT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COVERED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'COMPUTER SOFTWARE' AND ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 12 THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE RESULT OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA IS NOTHING BUT THE SOFTWARE (I.E. VECTOR NTI ADVANCE ) WHICH IS DEVELOPED BY THE APPELLANT IN INDIA. 13 THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DOCUMENTS (SUCH AS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS EVIDENCING THE ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 9 FACT THAT THE EARNINGS OF THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. FOREIGN INWARD REMITTANCE CERTIFICATE (FI RC') EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPED BY THE BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS EXPORTED OUTS IDE INDIA. R& D AGREEMENT) SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPED IN INDIA IS ACTUALLY EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA. 14. THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT INC LUDES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE WHICH SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FIELD OF BIOINFORMATICS. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER RESCIND AN D MODIFY THE GROUNDS HEREIN ABOVE OR PRODUCE FURTHER DOCUMENTS FACTS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. FOR THE ABOVE AND ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT NECESSARY RELIEF MAY BE PROVIDED . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: A SSESSEE IS 100% EOU REGISTERED WITH C O CHIN S PECIAL E CONOMIC Z ONE FOR MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS AND B IO I NFORMATICS C HEMISTRY. ASSESSEE FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 10 RETURN OF INCOME BOOK FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ON 30/09/08 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AND LOSS OF RS.80 48 771/ - RESPECTIVELY. LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION10 B AMOUNTING TO RS.92 56 242 / - AND RS.1 97 61 465/ - RESPECTIVELY FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE A CT AND ORDERS UNDER SECTION 143 (3) WAS PASSED ACCEPTING NIL INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 22/12/09 AND FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.4 02 970/ - . 2.1 SUBSEQUENTLY WHILE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WAS GOING ON LD.AO HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE WRONGLY CLA IMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. 2. 2 ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENTS WERE REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 25/03/13 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ON 11/03/13 AND 15/03/13 RESPECTIVELY. IT IS OBSERVED THAT REASONS RECORDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IS PLACED AT PAGE 77 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE 91 OF PAPER BOOK FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE REASONS RECORDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ; 11 - 03 - 2013 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y - 2007 - 08 ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING NIL TOTAL INCOME AFTER ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 11 CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S10 B OF RS.92 56 242/ - . THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S143(3) WAS MADE ON 22 - 12 - 2009 BY ACCEPTING THE NIL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS REGISTERED WITH CSEZ AS 100% EOU W.E.F. 10 - 03 - 2005 AND CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S10B. AS PER CERT IFICATE OF CSEZ THE ITEM OF PRODUCTION IS ' FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS BIOINFORMATICS CHEMISTRY' IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE INFORMATION BROUGHT ON RECORDS REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CARRYING ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE FIELD OF FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS BIOINFORMATICS CHEMISTRY ON BEHALF OF ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE IN US. AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 25 - 07 - 2005 OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH ITS FO REIGN ASSOCIATED (HOLDING) COMPANY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TERMED AS 'CONTRACTOR' AND IT IS BEING REIMBURSED BY ITS HOLDING COMPANY FOR ALL SERVICES - RELATED COSTS INCURRED IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES PLUS A TEN PERCENT COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS BEEN RAISING THE BILL/ INVOICES AS 'RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE MONTH OF IT IS EVIDENT FROM DETAILS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY USED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT MOST OF THE MACHINERIES USED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE LAB EQUIPMENTS FOR RES EARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND THERE IS VERY MINIMAL USE OF COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE. MOREOVER IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE ONE OF THE MAJOR EXPENDITURE IS LAB CONSUMABLES USED TO THE TUNE OF RS.60 22 070/ - . THUS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS PROVIDING R&D FACILITY IN THE FIELD OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY I.E. FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS AND BIOINFORMATICS ON BEHALF OF ITS ASSOCIATE (HOLDING) COMPANY AND COST IS BEING REIMBURSED BY ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 12 THE ASSOCIATED COMPANY WITH 10% COMMISSION. HENCE THERE IS NO ACTI VITY OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THUS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED BASICALLY IN THE ACTIVITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORK WHICH IS NOT RELATING TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND HENCE IT NOT A PART OF ANY NOTIFIED ITES. HENCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE RELIEF/DEDUCTION UNDER THE I.T.ACT BY WAY OF EXEMPTION U/S10B FOR RS.92 56 242/ - . FURTHER IN THE IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT DISCLOSED NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY FULLY AND TRULY. IT WAS ONLY DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF BIOINFORMATICS AND FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS AN D THERE WAS NO INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT AS TO HOW THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE OR PRODUCT OR SERVICE IN THE NATURE OF NOTIFIED ITEAS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S10 B WAS ACCEPT ED BY THE AO. IT IS ONLY NOW I.E. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 THE COPIES OF AGREEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR AND ANALYZED. THE FRESH EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORDS REVEAL THAT THE R & D ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT IN THE FIELD OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND IT IS NOT PERTAINING TO ANY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND HENCE THERE IS NO ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING OR EXPORT OF ANY COMPUTER SOFTWARE OR PROVIDING ANY ITES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 13 NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. HENCE I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CHARGEABLE TO TAX FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL OF CIT IS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE CIT AS REQUIRED U/S151(1) OF THE IT ACT 1961. 3. LD. AO COMPLETED REASSESSMENT V IDE ORDER DATED 31/10/13 FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY DENYING FOLLOWING: DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE A CT PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS DIVISION. AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS DISALLOWANCES MADE. LD.AO HOWEVER ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM BIO - INFORMATICS DIVISION IN BOTH YEARS. 3.1 SUBSEQUENTLY LD. CIT ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE NOTICE ISSUED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AS UNDER: OFFICE OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 3 BMTC BUILDING '5TH FLOOR KORAMANGALA 80 FT. ROAD BENGALURU - 95. TELEPHONE 25625602 F. NO.REV.8/INVITROGEN/PR.CIT/B - 3/ 2015 - 16 DATED:16.12.2015 TO MS INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES PVT LTD. NO.3 FIRST TECHNOLOGY PLACE EPIP WHITEFIELD BANGALORE - 66. SIRS SUB : REVISION U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT IN YOUR CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 - ISSUE OF NOTICE - CALLING FOR OBJECTIONS IF ANY REG. ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 14 THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 IN YOUR CASE WAS PASSED ON 31.10.2013 FOR THE AY 2007 - 08. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS IT IS NOTICED TH AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143 R.W.S. 147 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2007 - 08 THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY ALLLOWED AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION DO NOT COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM ' EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE'. THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED BASED ON THE FACT THAT SOFTWARE EXPENSES ARE EMPLOYED IN THE SAID DIVISION. THIS HAS RESULTED IN INCORRECT ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B TO THE EXTENT OF RS.34 03 693/ - . 3. HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS & PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. I THEREFORE PROPOSE TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE LT ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 5. IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE REQUESTED TO FILE YOUR CLARIFICATIONS ON THE OBJECTIONS IF ANY TO THE P ROPOSED ACTION ON OR BEFORE 05.01.2016. YOU ARE ALSO GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AT HIS OFFICE AT BMTC BUILDING 5TH FLOOR 80 FEET ROAD KOROMANGALA BENGALURU - 95 ON 05.01.2016 AT 11.30 AM. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/ - (K.KRISHNA RAO ) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX BENGALURU - 3 BENGALURU 3.2 LD.CIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE CONCLUDED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. THE DISCUSSION ABOVE IS CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: A) THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS PARENT COMPANY CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 15 R & D ACTIVITIES. THE APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE COCHIN SEZ INDICATES THAT THE BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION IS ONLY CARRYING ON R&D IN BIOINFORMATICS CHEMISTRY WHICH DOES NO T FALL UNDER THE REALM OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TO BE AN EXPORTER OF SOFTWARE IS UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE EXPORT INVOICES FURNISHED BY THE COMPANY A LSO INDICATE THAT WHAT IS BEING EXPORTED IS NOT SOFTWARE BUT ONLY R&D RESEARCH SINCE THE INVOICE STATES THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY IS FOR THE PU R POSE OF R&D CHARGES. B) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SOUGHT TO CORRELATE THE EXPORT OF ITS RESEARCH & RESULTS OF R&D ACTIVITY TO BE COMPUTER SOFTW ARE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B IN RESPECT OF R&D RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE IN BIOINFORMATICS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS WRONGLY INFERRED R&D IN BIOINFORMATICS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DE D UCTION U/S 10B WHEREIN IT IS NOT EXPLICITLY NOTIFIED BY A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE. THE OPTION LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE TO MOVE THE LEGISLATURE TO GET THE BENEFIT OF 10B D EDUCTION FOR R&D RELATED TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF BIOINFORMATICS EXPLICITLY. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISI ON THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B BY THE AO FOR THE PROFITS FROM THE BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B WRONGLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSES S E E COMPANY IN RESPECT OF BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION. 4. AGGRIEVED BY OBSERVATIONS AND ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE A CT ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF BIO INFORMATICS SOFTWARE USED IN ANALYSING GENE SEQUENCES PROTEIN SEQUENCES IN SILICON VALLEY OWNING GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 16 PATHWAYS D EVELOPMENT AND SOFTWARE CUSTOMIZ ATION BY USING PLATFORMS LIKE C++ JAVA ETC. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPED IS CARRIED ON BY ASSESSEE ARE EITHER FOR ITS OWN PRODUCTS OR INDEPENDENT PROJECTS AND THAT THE INDEPENDENT PROJECTS RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE TOOLS OR APPLICATION FOR EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED T HAT THESE PROJECTS ARE CONTRACTOR BY THE PARENT COMPANY DIRECTLY WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES AND ARE BILLED DIRECTLY TO THEM. ASSESSEE INVOICES ITS PARENT COMPANY AND RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR THE PROJECTS ON COST PLUS MARKUP BASIS. 4.2 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSEE IN ITS OWN PRODUCT CATEGORY UNDERTAKES END TO END DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS TOOLS AND APPLICATION. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR PRODUCT RELEASED IN ITS OWN PRODUCTS SEGMENT INCLUDES VECTOR NTI WHICH IS A STAND - ALONE TEXT OF SOFTWARE WHICH ALLOWS BOTH ACADEMICIANS AS WELL AS PROFESSIONALS TO CARRY OUT DETAILED RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF GENOMICS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS SOFTWARE IS EQUIPPED WITH COMPREHENSIVE SEAWARD OF TOOLS WHICH ALLOW MAPPING AND ANALYSING DNA AND PROTEIN SEQ UENCE ALIGNING DIFFERENT DNA AND PROTEIN SEQUENCE TO COMPARE THEM AND CREATING A VIEWING 3 - D MODELS OF PROTEIN STRUCTURES. 4.3 LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 01/01/05 PLACED AT PAGE 118 OF PAPER BOOK FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHEREIN THE INVENTIONS CREATED BY ASSESSEE ARE ASSIGNED BY ASSESSEE TO ITS PARENT COMPANY. FURTHER REFERRING TO PAGE 122 OF PAPER BOOK IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT UNDER ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 17 BIOINFORMATICS SEGMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES C ARRIED ON BY ASSESSEE WILL BE IN FOLLOWING AREAS: 1. DEVELOPMENT OF BIO INFORMATICS TOOLS IN ANALYSING GENE SEQUENCE PROTEIN SEQUENCE INSILCO CLONING GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING PATHWAYS DEVELOPMENT AND SOFTWARE CUSTOMISATION. THE PLATFORMS TO BE USED ARE C+ + JAVA PEARL SQL. TOOLS WILL BE IN THE WINDOWS AND UNIX. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF TOOLS TO CREATE AND MANAGE DATABASE. 4.4 LD. AR THUS EMPHASISED THAT ASSESSEE SATISFIES ALL REQUIREMENT S TO C LAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B AS THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CARRIED ON BY ASSESSEE IS EITHER FOR ITS OWN PRODUCTS OR INDEPENDENT PROJECTS WHICH RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR APPLICATION OF EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT LD. AO WHILE PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH 147 OF THE A CT CAT EGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE W AS CARRYING OUT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND IS ELIGIBLE TO C LAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT FOR BIO - INFORMATI CS DIVISION. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF ALL THE DETAILS FILED BY ASSESSEE AS CALLED UPON HE DISAL LOWED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B UNDER GENOMICS DIVISION AS IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED BY LD. A O THAT FUNCTIONS OF ASSESSEE UNDER THIS SEGMENT WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON GENETIC SCIENCES WHEREAS THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY ASSESSEE UNDER BIO - INFORMATICS SEGMENT WAS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS. ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 18 4.5 LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DRP WHILE CONSIDERING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 10B FOR BIO - IN FORM ATICS DIVISION . HE ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE UPON C IRCULAR NO. 1 OF 2013 ISSUED BY CBDT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER DEFINITION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE STIPULATED UN DER EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTIO N 10A AND 10B OF THE A CT. 4.6 LD.AR THUS SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO MIS TAKE ON BEHALF OF LD.AO IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF 10B DEDUCTION FOR BIO - I NFORMATICS DIVISION. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. AO HAD CALLED FOR ALL THE NECESSAR Y DETAILS AND UPON VERIFYING S AME AND ALLOWED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE VIEW TAKEN BY AO IN THESE TWO YEARS ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AN PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVE N UE. LD.AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT IS BASED UPON THE INVOICES PLACED AT PAGE 89 - 98 OF PAPER BOOK FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHEREIN THE DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN MENTIONED TO BE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO IS NEITHER PREJUDICIAL NOR ERRONEOUS TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN (2000) 109 TAXMANN 66 (SC) ; CIT VS GABRIEL INDIA LTD (1993) 203 ITR 108 (BOM); CIT VS SUNBEAM AUTO LTD (2010) 189 TAXMANN 436 (DEL); CIT VS GOKULDAS EXPORTS (2012) 20 TAXMAN.COM 491 (KAR) ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 19 4.7 LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAS TO BE PRIMA - FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY APPLICATION OF RELEVANT STATUTE OR AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST HAS BEEN IMPOSED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY LD. CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFI CER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN CONCLUDING PARA 10 OF RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER LD. AO HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 10. AS REGARDS ACTIVITY OF THE BIO INFORMATICS DIVISION THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS APPOINTED FEW SOFTWARE ENGINEERS WHO BASICALLY WORK IN THIS DIVISION. MOREOVER THE CLASSIFICATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT ACTIVITY OF BIO INFORMATICS DIVISION INDICATE THAT THIS DIVISION IS DEVELOPING APPLICATIONS FOR DISSEMINATION OF R&D RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS AND ALSO THIS DIVISION HAS BEEN MAINTAINING AND UPDATING WEBSITE FACILITY OF THE COMPANY. HENCE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B IS ALLOWED TO THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM BIO INFORMATICS DIVISION. 5.1 LD.CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS THE ONLY RELEVANT PARA OBSERVAT ION BY LD.AO IN RESPECT OF BIO - I NFORMATICS DIVISION AND FURTHER IT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT LD.AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE AS HE HIM SELF MENTIONS THAT BIO - INF ORMATICS D IVISION INDICATE S THAT THIS DIVISION IS DEVELOPING APPLICATIONS FOR DISSEMINATION OF R&D RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS. 5.2 LD. CIT DR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 20 SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN HONBLE COURT EMPHASISED AS UNDER: 7. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SE CTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. AN INCORRECT EXEMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALLS ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT AP PLICATION OF MIND. SHE SUBMITTED BY PLACING REFERENCE TO PARA 10 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT LD.AO DID NOT APP L Y HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF CASE AND THEREFORE ORDER PASSED BY LD.AO GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B TO BIOINFORMATICS SEGMENT IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS LACED BEFORE US. 6.1 FROM REASONS RECORDE D FOR RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSMENTS WERE RE - OPENED IN ORDER TO VERIFY DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF BOTH GENOMICS AND BIO - INFORMATICS DIVISIONS. LD.CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT WHILE PASSING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OR DER IN RESPECT OF BOTH YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION LD.AO FAILED TO VERIFY THE ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 21 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND FUNCTIONS CARRIED BY ASSESSEE UNDER BOTH DIVISIONS. LD. AO IN NOTICE/QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS CALLING UPON ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CORRECTNESS OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S10B OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CALLED UPON BY LD.AO TO EXPLAIN WHETHER ASSESSEE SATISFIES NECESSARY CONDITIONS U/S 10B OF THE ACT. 6. 2 IT IS THUS OBSERVED THAT LD.AO DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS TO ANALYSE WHETHER ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT FOR BOTH SEGMENTS BEING FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS AND BIOINFORMATICS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD .AO AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FILED BY ASSESSEE DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 10B IN RESPECT OF FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS DIVISION. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS AND/DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THAT PRODUCT DEVELOPED BY BIOINFORMATICS DIVISIO N IS SOFTWARE WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PUBLIC DOMAIN THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD.CIT VIDE LETTER DATED 26/03/16 AT PAGE 116 - 122 OF PAPER BOOK ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND LETTER DATED 05/01/2016 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AT PAGE 126 - 131 OF PAPER BOOK. LD.AO REFERRED TO AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY ASSESSEE WITH ITS PARENT COMPANY AND HAS CALLED UPON DETAILS FROM SEZ COCHIN WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 123 OF PAPER BOOK. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY LD.AO DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS UPON HIS ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 22 SATISFACTION THAT LD.AO GRANTED DEDUCTION FOR BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION WHEREAS DENIED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B FOR FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS DIVISION. 6. 3 ON PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD. CIT RECORD S ASSESSEE DEVELOPED SOFTWARE I.E VECTOR NTI ADVANCE . HOWEVER LD.CIT OBSERVES THAT THERE IS NO MENTION IN EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE OUTSIDE INDIA. I T APPEARS THAT BEC AUSE THE SERVICE AGREEMENT DOES NOT MENTION ANY EXPOR T OF SOFTWARE OUTSIDE INDIA LD.CIT HELD ORDER PASSED BY LD.AO TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST OF REVENUE. LD.CIT AT PAGE 4 OBSERVES AS UNDER: .. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEVELOPED SOFTWARE VI Z. VECTOR NTI ADVANCE WHICH IS USED IN ITS RESEARCH ACTIVITY FOR ANALYSING GENE SEQUENCE PROTEIN SEQUENCE SALIC ON CLONING GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING ETC BY USING PLATFORMS LIKE C++ JAVA ETC. THESE ARE AND THE ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF AND SOFTWARE WHICH ARE DEVELOPED ARE FOR ITS OWN RESEARCH ACTIVITY AND ONLY THE RESULTS OF THIS RESEARCH ACTIVITIES EXPORTED TO THE PARENT COMPANY. THE TERM USED IN SECTION 10 B IS EXPORT COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE BEI NG BIO INFIRM AT A TOOLS FOR ITS OWN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND THEREAFTER TRANSFERRING THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH CDS CANNOT BE ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 23 TERMED AS EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND IS ONLY EXPORT OF RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT BY IT. THUS THERE IS NO DENIAL ON BEHALF OF LD. CIT THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE TOOLS. HOWEVER ACCORDING TO LD. CIT EXEMPTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS EXPORTI NG RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT BY BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION. 7. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO EXTRACT OBSERVATIONS OF DRP FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 WHEREIN REFERENCE TO C IRCULAR 1 OF 2013 ISSUED BY CBDT HAS BEEN MADE WHICH CLARIFIES THAT EVEN IF ANY RESEARCH AND DEVELOP MENT IN ANY FIELD IS DONE IN PROCESS OF PROVIDING NOTIFIED SERVICES IN PARTICULAR SERVICES OF ENGINEERING AND DESIGN THE SAME WILL BE COVERED UNDER AFORESAID CBDT NOTIFICATIO N WHICH WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR 10A/10 B BENEFIT. 7.1 WE NOTICE THAT ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE CONDUCTS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES BUT THE SAME IS ON LY A PROCESS STEP TO PROVIDE FINAL OUTPUT TO ITS PARENT COMPANY. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT WHAT IS DEVELOPED BY ASSESSEE UNDER THIS S EGMENT IS A CUSTOMISED ELECTRONIC DATA CREATED THROUGH VARIOUS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. NO DOUBT INVOICES PLACED IN PAPER BOOK MENTIONS R ESEARCH AND D EVELOPMENT CHARGES CANNOT IMPLIEDLY MEAN THAT ACTIVITIES CA RRIED ON BY ASSESSEE UNDER B IO - I NFORMATICS SEGMENT DOES NOT AMOUNT MANUFACTURE COMPUTER SOFTWARE. ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 24 WE REFER TO THE TERM COMPUTER SOFTWARE AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 10 B OF THE A CT TO MEAN: (A) ANY COMPUTER PROGRAM RECORDED ON ANY DISK TAPE PERFORATED MEDIA OR OTHER INFORMATION STORAG E DEVICES; OR (B) ANY CUSTOMISED ELECTRONIC TATA OR ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE OF SIMILAR NATURE AS MAY BE NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD WHICH IS TRANSMITTED OR EXPORTED FROM INDIA TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE INDIA BY ANY MEANS. A CO - JOINT READING OF DEFINITION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1/2013 WHAT COMES TO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ASSESSEE IS DEVELOPING A CUSTOMI SED SOFTWARE IN THE FORM OF BIO - INFIRM AT ICS TOOLS USING PLATFORMS LIKE C++ JAVA WHICH IS USED TO ANALYSE GENE SEQUENCE PROTEIN SEQUENCE IN SI LICON VALLEY OWNING GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING PATHWAYS DEVELOPMENT ETC THIS IS WHAT LD. AO INTEND FROM WHAT HE MENTIONED IN PARA 10 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO BY LD. CIT DR. IN OUR OPINION LD.AO WAS SATISFIED UPON VERIFICATION OF DOC UMENTS PLACED BY ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE CALLED UPON VARIOUS DETAILS TO VERIFY CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDER BOTH SEGMENTS. AND THEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT RESTRICTING CLAIM ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF BIOINFORMATICS SEGMENT. THUS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT VIEW TAKEN BY LD. AO IS A POSSIBLE VIEW. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT MERELY BECAUSE L D.CIT HAS TAKEN DIFFERENT VIEW ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL . ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 25 7.2 FOR SECTION 263 TO BE INITIATED BOTH CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MUST BE JOINTLY SATISFIED. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAVING REGARDS TO EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE AS ANALYSED BY LD.AO VIEW ADOPTED BY LD. AO IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS. AS BOTH CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED IN PRESENT CASE WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263. WE ALSO REFE R TO DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GRASIM I NDUSTRIES LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 321 ITR 92 WHEREIN HONBLE C OURT BY CONSIDERING RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MALABAR I NDUSTRIAL CO LTD (SUPRA) OBSERVED AS UNDER: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINED THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE TO PASS AN ORDER UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AN ENQUIRY AS IS NECESSARY ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE KEYWORDS THAT ARE USED BY SECTION 263 A RE THAT THE ORDER MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JUDGEMENTS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TURN. IN M ALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD VS CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 26 ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECT ION WILL BE ATTRACTED. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT ON AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WOULD BE AN ORDER FALLING IN THAT CATEGORY. THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE THE SUPREME COURT HELD IT IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVE NUE IS EXPLAINED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OPENED BRACKET HEAD NOTE): THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR EXAMPLE WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE 2 VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW . THIS PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAINED IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD (2007) 295 ITR 282. IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE LD. CIT HAS NOT ANALYSED ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY ASSESSEE UNDER BIOINFORMATICS DIVISION HAVING REGARDS TO DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND C IRCULAR REFER RED AND RELIED UPON ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 27 BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONSIDERED DRP ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ON WHICH RELI ANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LD.AR. WE ARE THUS BASED UPON AFORESTATED OBSERVATIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING RATIO IS LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) HOLD REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 TO BE BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME IS QUASHED AND SET - ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 - 10 - 2019 SD/ - S D / - (B.R.BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 - 10 - 2019 *AM COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5. DR 6. ITO (TDS) 7.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITA NO S.868 & 869 (B)/201 6 28