ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant - revenue has challenged the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Ahmedabad in I.T.A. No. 560/Ahd/2015, by proposing the following question of law stated to be a substantial question of law: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the respondent assessee had established a new 100% Export Oriented Undertaking eligible for exemption u/s. 10B of the Income Tax Act and not SEZ Unit?" 2. The assessment year is 2010-11 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year 2009-10. The assessee, which is assessed in the status of a firm, develops software for foreign clients. The assessee filed its return of income on 17.09.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 68,692/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 44,53,725/- under section 10B of the Act. The assessee's turnover in the relevant previous year was Rs. 1,11,92,263/- with net profits of Rs. 45,20,262/-. The Assessing Officer framed assessment accepting the assessee's returned income. The Commissioner of Income Tax, however, was of the belief that the assessment was erroneous and caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue since the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone had granted it approval under the EOU Scheme by permission letter dated 02.02.2007 as a 100% Export Oriented Unit and not an Undertaking as provided by the Board. He, accordingly, was of the view that the approval permitted to an SEZ (Special Economic Zone) Unit did not carry the same meaning as an Undertaking envisaged under section 10B of the Act. He, therefore, issued a notice dated 04.02.2014 under section 263 of the Act seeking to reverse the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. 3. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its reply dated 05.09.2014 claiming that it was deriving income from export of software development, web designing and development. Their unit is granted 100% Export Oriented Undertaking approval by KASEZ (Kandla Special Economic Zone) vide letter of permission dated 02.02.2007. This letter was ratified by the Board of Approval for EOU in its second meeting held on 17th May, 2007 and also placed on record the letter for ready reference. Their unit is granted 100% Export Oriented Undertaking approval by KASEZ (Kandla Special Economic Zone) vide letter of permission dated 02.02.2007. This letter was ratified by the Board of Approval for EOU in its second meeting held on 17th May, 2007 and also placed on record the letter for ready reference. The assessee reiterated its status as a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking instead of an SEZ Unit. The Commissioner of Income Tax, however, did not agree with the submissions advanced by the assessee and was of the view that a 'Unit' under SEZ does not contain the same meaning as an 'undertaking' envisaged in section 10B of the Act. Further as per clause (zc) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, a 'Unit' means a unit set up by an entrepreneur in a Special Economic Zone and includes an existing unit, and Offshore Banking Unit and a Unit in an International Financial Services Centre. He, accordingly, was of the view that the assessee's Unit is located at Ahmedabad, outside the defined SEZ and hence the assessee was not eligible for any deduction under section 10B of the Act. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment made by the Assessing Officer for being framed de novo. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which, after considering the merits of the case, allowed the assessee's appeal. 4. Mr. Varun Patel, learned standing counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned order by placing reliance upon the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax and submitted that the assessee not having satisfied the requirements for availing the benefit under section 10B of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax had rightly set aside the assessment order. It was submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent assessee had established a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking which was eligible for exemption under section 10B of the Act and was not a SEZ Unit. It was submitted that there is no proof to show that the approval given by the Development Commissioner was ratified by the Board of Approval and, therefore also, the Tribunal has erred in interfering with the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. It was submitted that there is no proof to show that the approval given by the Development Commissioner was ratified by the Board of Approval and, therefore also, the Tribunal has erred in interfering with the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the order under section 263 of the Act as well as the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, taken note of the fact that the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Ministry of Commerce and Industry had granted approval to the assessee in EOU Scheme 2004-09 for establishment of a new Undertaking at the address mentioned therein. That the paper book further revealed that the relevant stipulations are also incorporated therein that section 10B relief would be subject to interpretation of its manufacturing activities. The Tribunal found that the Development Commissioner, Kandla SEZ had approved the assessee as a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking and not a SEZ Unit as interpreted by the Commissioner of Income Tax and was of the view that the said finding also takes care of Commissioner of Income Tax's observation that an SEZ Unit cannot be held eligible for section 10B deduction being established outside the defined SEZ. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Enable Export Pvt. Ltd. rendered on 14.09.2009 in ITA No. 1072 of 2011, wherein it was held that once the Development Commissioner, exercising powers of the Board of Approval, gives his assent to an Undertaking, the same is valid for claiming deduction under section 10B of the Act and accordingly, held that the assessee had established a new 100% Export Oriented Undertaking under section 10B of the Act and not an SEZ Unit as perceived by the Commissioner of Income Tax and reversed the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. 7. From the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax, it is apparent that he has revised the assessment order on the ground that the assessee is not a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, but an Export Oriented Unit and does not have the approval of the Board of Approval. However, upon the assessee bringing it to the notice of the Commissioner of Income Tax that both the above factors are satisfied, the Commissioner of Income Tax has proceeded on a totally different footing that a 'Unit' under Special Economic Zone does not carry the same meaning as an 'Undertaking' as envisaged under section 10B of the Act and that the petitioner's unit being located at Ahmedabad and outside the defined SEZ is not eligible for deduction under section 10B of the Act. 8. From the facts as emerging from the record, it is evident that the assessee's Unit was granted approval as a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking by a letter of permission dated 02.02.2007, which was ratified in the second meeting of the Board for Approval held on 17.05.2007. The assessee being a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, was therefore, entitled to claim deduction under section 10B of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, on an erroneous reading of the facts on the record, has come to the conclusion that the assessee is a Unit under the SEZ and not a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking and has, accordingly, come to the conclusion that since the assessee's unit is not located within a defined SEZ it is not entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 10B of the Act. Evidently therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax is based upon an erroneous finding of fact. The Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in holding that the assessee was a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking and not an SEZ Unit and therefore, entitled to deduction under section 10B of the Act. In these premises, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. 9. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.