IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.206/PAN./2019 – Assessment Year 1998-1999 V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Private Limited, P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, Dr. F.L. Gomes Road, Vaso da Gama. Goa PIN – 403 802 PAN AAACV5950B vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Patto, Panaji. State Goa. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Ved For Revenue : Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 1998- 1999, arises against the CIT(A), Panaji-1, Panaji’s order dated 28.03.2019, passed in appeal ITA.No-CIT(A), PNJ- 1/10295/2012-13, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 I.T.A.No.206/PAN./2019 3. Learned counsel has further filed the assessee’s written submissions during the course of hearing as under : 3 I.T.A.No.206/PAN./2019 4. Suffice to say, both the learned parties before us seek to raise twin issues of sec.80HHC deduction regarding the assessee’s truck hire charges, barge hire charges, ore processing receipts, transhipper loader charges and machinery hire charges; involving varying sums, as the case may be. It has come on record in assessee’s grounds itself that this former issue stands decided in department’s favour that such receipts could not be held to have been “derived from” the corresponding export activity(ies). Learned counsel could hardly dispute the finality of this clinching proposition so far as the assessee’s case is concerned in it’s own case(s) as well as in light of Shah Originals vs. CIT [2023] 459 ITR 385 (SC). We thus accept the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting both the lower authorities action to this extent. 5. The factual position regarding the correct computation of assessee’s deduction goes in a little different direction. This is for the precise reason that the assessee’s claim before us is that once the aforestated receipts are excluded from it’s “export turnover” u/sec.80HHC deduction, the very course of action must be followed regarding “total turnover” as well. Learned counsel not only placed reliance on the CIT(A)'s findings in subsequent assessment years but also quoted CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). Faced with the situation, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to re-compute the assessee’s impugned deduction after 4 I.T.A.No.206/PAN./2019 reducing the foregoing heads of charges/receipts (supra) both from export as well as total turnover in accordance with law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. No other ground has been pressed before us. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.01.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 08 th January, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Panaji-1, “Aayakar Bhavan”, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji-403 001. 4. The CCIT, Panaji. 5. D.R. ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.