Beardshell Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1431/CHNY/1998

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61096 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-1998
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAMADITYA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1431(MDS)/1998 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 M/S.BEARDSELL LIMITED, 47-GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006 PAN/GI NO.47-004-CV-7161 VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE I, CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, A DVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAMADITYA, IRS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD MAY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD MAY, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 1995-96. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V AT CHENNAI, DATED 18-6-1998 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT CO MPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. - - ITA 1431 OF 1998 2 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIRST CONSIDERED BY THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B-BENCH, CHENNAI, THROUGH ITS O RDER DATED 12-3-2004 PASSED IN ITA NO.1431(MDS)/1998. FOLLOWI NG THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOW ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS WAS TAKEN UP BE FORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN APPEAL BY THE REVEN UE. THE APPEAL INTAX CASE(APPEAL) NO.740 OF 2004 IS NOW DIS POSED OF BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THROUGH THE JUDGME NT OF THEIR LORDSHIPS DELIVERED ON 5-7-2011. THE MATTER RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RELATED TO THE COMPUTATION OF DE DUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT MADE A VERY PERTINENT OBSERV ATION THAT NEITHER THE TRIBUNAL, NOR THE OTHER AUTHORITIES HAV E MADE ANY DISCUSSION IN THEIR ORDERS REGARDING THE CRUCIAL QU ESTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT ON THE TURNOVER PERTAINING TO LOCAL SALES AND EXPORT SALES . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT THAT SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAIN ED. BUT THE COURT FELT THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO. THE HONBLE - - ITA 1431 OF 1998 3 HIGH COURT ALSO FELT THAT THE LAW DECLARED BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.RAVINDRANATH AN NAIR, 295 ITR 228, ALSO HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO WHILE DECID ING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL. IN T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMITTED BACK THE FILE TO THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS THUS THAT THIS MATTER IS COMING UP FOR THE SECOND T IME BEFORE US. 3. WE HEARD SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI VIKRAMA DITYA, THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE. 4. ONE OF THE CRUCIAL ISSUES TO BE VERIFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINT AINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF ITS LOCAL T URNOVER AND EXPORT TURNOVER. THIS MATTER IS TO BE VERIFIED. T HEREFORE, WE FIND IT NECESSARY THAT THE CASE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT MAI NTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RELATING TO DOMESTIC AND EXPORT TURNOVERS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED TWO SEPA RATE SETS OF - - ITA 1431 OF 1998 4 ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PROCEED TO GRAN T THE RELIEF ENTITLED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. WHILE DOI NG SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.RAVI NDRANATHAN NAIR, 295 ITR 228. 5. THE FILE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER CONCERNING SECTION 80HHC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING T HE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD OF MAY, 2012 AT CHE NNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 23 RD MAY, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 6.GF. 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR