Fresh assessment and deduction eligibility require reconsideration where books, export unit status, and alternative tax claims remain unresolved.

Where books of account were not produced before the Assessing Officer and there was dispute about later electronic production before the appellate authority, the factual controversy and returned loss required fresh verification, so the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 was restored for de novo assessment. For assessment year 2009-10, eligibility for deduction under section 10B depended on approval as a 100% export oriented undertaking, and the alternative claim under section 10A had not been examined below; both claims were therefore remitted for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 required to be set aside and restored for fresh consideration where the books of account were not produced before the Assessing Officer and the assessee claimed that material was later furnished before the appellate authority. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B for assessment year 2009-10, and if not, whether the alternative claim under section 10A required consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 required to be set aside and restored for fresh consideration where the books of account were not produced before the Assessing Officer and the assessee claimed that material was later furnished before the appellate authority.

Analysis: The assessment had been made under section 144 on the footing that the books of account were not produced for verification. The appellate record showed a dispute as to whether the books were later produced in electronic form before the appellate authority. In the interests of justice, the factual controversy regarding the books and the correctness of the returned loss required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessment for assessment year 2008-09 was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B for assessment year 2009-10, and if not, whether the alternative claim under section 10A required consideration.

Analysis: Deduction under section 10B is available only to a unit approved as a 100% export oriented undertaking by the Board appointed under section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The record also indicated reliance on approval under the special economic zone or STPI framework, while the assessee asserted past recognition and continued eligibility. In the light of the cited Delhi High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the claim needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. The alternative claim under section 10A had also not been examined by the authorities below and therefore required adjudication on the statutory conditions.

Conclusion: The deduction claim under section 10B and the alternative claim under section 10A were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only for statistical purposes, with both disputed issues restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity.

---