M/s. Mridul Enterprises, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 122/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5671 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANT MISHRA
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE ITA NO.122/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/S. MRIDUL ENTERPRISES, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 28 (1) , 4634, AJMERI GATE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN : AAAFM3963A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI JAYANT MISHRA, CIT DR ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS ARE RAISED RAISING ONLY ONE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF INCLUSION OF E NTIRE SALE OF DEPB AS PROVIDED ON TRANSFER OF DEPB ENTITLEMENT U/S 80HHC :- 1) THAT THE AO/CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT CASE IN H OLDING THAT THE ENTIRE SALE VALUE OF DEPB REPRESENTS THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB ENTITLEMENT. 2) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (IIID) OF SEC TION 28 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEPB FOR THE ITA NO.122/DEL./2010 2 PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF TH E INCOME- TAX ACT. 3) THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE TREATMENT OF DEPB FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IS BAD IN LAW AND IS PRAYED TO BE QUASHED. 4) THAT THE RELIANCE OF CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER ON THE CASE OF M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD. IS MISPLACED AND ERRON EOUS. 5) THAT THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF DEPB FOR THE PURP OSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. ITO 2009-ITOL-531 [M UM. ITAT SPECIAL BENCH]. 6) THAT THE A.O./CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B/234C/234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7) THAT EACH GROUND IS INDEPENDENT OF AND WITHOUT P REJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED HEREIN. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED ITS APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. LEARNED DR IS HEARD. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PER USING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT (A) INSTEAD OF HOLDING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE SAME IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. IT O (SUPRA) WHICH HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE ABOUT DEPB ENTITLEMENT WHILE C OMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER ITA NO.122/DEL./2010 3 CONSIDERING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 8 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-XXV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.