THE ACIT CIR 18(2), MUMBAI V. M/S. LOOMS INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 301/MUM/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2473 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure
• Section: 142(1); 80HHC

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , !' #$, % , & BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. NO.301/MUM/2005 ( %' ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 18(2) ROOM NO.115, 1 ST FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400012 ' / VS. M/S. LOOMS INDIA 126, MATHURADAS MILL COMPOUND, N.M.JOSHI MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400013 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABFL0259D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 22.04.2016 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.07.2016 #$ / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 10.11.2004 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XVIII, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT( A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2001-02. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN DEPARTMENT BY: SMT. POOJA SWAROOP ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 2 (I) DIRECTING TO TREAT AMOUNTING TO RS.37,16,803 A S BUSINESS PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IGNORING TH AT THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST IS NOT DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF G OODS; (II) DIRECTING TO TREAT SALES TAX REFUND OF RS.51,1 00/- AS BUSINESS PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IG NORING THAT THE SALES TAX REFUND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DERI VED EXPORT SALE PROCEEDS IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC; (III) HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST ON FDR IS TO BE NET TED OFF AGAINST THE INTEREST PAYMENT EXPENSES IGNORING THAT THERE I S NO NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND INTEREST ON FDR; (IV) HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST ON FDR IS TO BE NETT ED OFF AGAINST THE INTEREST PAYMENT EXPENSES IGNORING THAT ANY REC EIPTS NOT FORMING PART OF SALE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO EX PORT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS PROFITS ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC; (V) DIRECTING TO TREAT INTEREST INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT FINANCING IS NOT THE BUSI NESS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE NETTED OFF AGA INST THE INTEREST PAYMENTS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S.36 OF THE INCOME TAX 1961; (VI) DIRECTING TO TREAT INTEREST ON FDR AS BUSINESS INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IGNORING THAT INTE REST INCOME DOES NOT FORM PART OF SALE PROCEEDINGS RELAT ING TO EXPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC; (VII) IGNORING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISI ONS IN A.K.DOSHI IN 249 ITR 849 KANTILA CHOTALAL IN 246 IT R 439, RAVI EXPORTS IN 246 ITR 443 AND PRAVIN M. MEHTA IN 246 ITR 445 HOLDING THAT INTEREST ON FDR IN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT EXPORT INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S.80HHC; (VIII) DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WITHO UT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO POSITIVE INCO ME FROM ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 3 EXPORT OF 90% OF INCENTIVES AND OTHER INCOME ARE RE DUCED FROM PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS; (IX) HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DED UCTION U/S.80HHC IGNORING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS TO B E CONSIDERED PER EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC ( 3) A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961; (X) DIRECTING TO ALLOW 10% OF EXPENDITURE ON EXPORT INCENTIVES OF RS.1,22,88,256/- AS INDIRECT COST WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACTS THAT THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS IN SECTION 8 0HHC TO ALLOW SUCH AD-HOC EXPENDITURES; (XI) DIRECTING TO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,37,5 7,005/- HOLDING THAT THE PURCHASES ARE FULLY EXPLAINED PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IGNORING THAT THE SUPPLIERS ARE UNTRACEABL E, TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BOOKS AND IN CASH, DETAILS FUR NISHED BY THE BROKERS NOT RELEVANT; (XII) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,37,57,005/- BEI NG UNPROVED PURCHASES IGNORING THE FACTS THAT M/S. K.G.DENIM LT D. DENIED ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE APPELLANT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FIRM HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2001 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. NIL AND DECLARING 20% OF AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT) CLAIM ED ON RS.22,33,208/- AS TAXABLE INCOME. THE RETURN IS AC COMPANIED BY AUDIT REPORT AS REQUIRED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT IN FOR M NO. 3CB AND 3CD. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE S U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THE ASS ESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.3 ,51,23,045/-. THE ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 4 ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE ON EXPORT INCENTIVE OF R S.1,22,88,256/- AND ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,37,57,005/-, THEREFORE THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7:- 4. ISSUE NO.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 ARE INTERCONNECTED, T HEREFORE ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. UNDER THESE I SSUES THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE NON TAXABILITY OF THE GROSS INTE REST OF RS.37,16,803 ON THE FDR HELD BY THE CIT(A). THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY MENTIONED BELOW. 3.1 THE FIRST POINT OF DISPUTE CONCERNS THE TAXABI LITY OF GROSS INTEREST OF RS.37,16,803/- ON THE FDRS. IN THIS RE GARD, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED BEFORE ME NOT ONLY A COPY O F THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI F BENCH REFERRED TO IN PARA 2.21 OF THIS ORDER, BUT HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF OR DERS OF CIT(A)-XVII (A.Y.1992-93) DTD.28.04.1997, CIT(A)XLVII (A.Y.1997-98) DTD. 16.01.2001, CIT(A)- XVIII FOR A.Y.S 1998-99 & 1999-2000, DTD. 21.02.200 2 & 26.06.2002, RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN UNIF ORMLY HELD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, INTEREST RECEIVED IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FRO M BUSINESS AND ALSO THAT INTEREST RECEIVED AND INTERE ST PAID ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 5 WILL HAVE TO BE NETTED OFF. FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISIONS, WITH WHICH I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT, I HOL D THAT THE GROSS INTEREST CANNOT BE TAXED BY ITSELF. THE INTEREST PAID IN THIS CASE IS RS.59,29,103/-, WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE INTEREST RECEIVED. AFTER NETTING OFF, THE BALANCE INTEREST AS DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT WILL HAVE A NORMAL EFFECT ON THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. THE NETTING OFF METHOD OF TAXATION OF INTEREST WILL, THEREFORE, COME INTO PLAY FOR COMPUTING THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S. 8HHC, IF ANY. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED NOT TO TAX THE GROSS INTEREST. 3.1.1 EVEN ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, I HAVE EXAMIN ED THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI C BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. DIAMOND CREEL (2001) (82 ITD 291), WHEREIN THE HONBLE TRIB UNAL HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWINGS OF AN ASSESSEE UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PUR POSE, AND THE FUNDS KEPT AS FDRS BY WAY OF SECURITY, MARG IN MONEY ETC., THEN INTEREST, IF ANY RECEIVED ON SUCH FDRS WILL HAVE TO BE NETTED OFF WHILE CONSIDERING AND CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC. IN THE INSTANT APPELLANTS CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE FDRS ARE ACQUIRED FROM THE FUNDS TAKEN FROM THE O.D. ACCOUNT WITH IOB AND THUS, ON FACTS ALSO THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS. T HIS POINT, ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 6 THEREFORE, GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE AP PELLANT HAS FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK, CERTIFYI NG THAT THE FDRS WERE ALL ACQUIRED BY DEBITING THE O.D. ACC OUNT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE O.D. BALANCES, BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR, FAR EXCEED TO AGGREGATE OF THE FDRS. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THESE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDING IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1485/M/1998 FO R THE A.Y.1992- 93 DECIDED ON 23.06.2004. NO DISTINGUISHABLE MATER IAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO RE NDERED THE FINDING IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.1998-99, 1999-2000 AND 1997-98. NO FINDING CONTRARY TO THE PRESENT FINDIN G IS ON RECORD. WE FOUND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF TH E CIT(A) ON RECORD, THEREFORE THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE ISSUE NO.2:- 6. UNDER THIS ISSUE THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDING OF CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING THE SALE TAX REFUND O F RS.51,100/- AS ALLOWABLE U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS DEC IDED THE SAID ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF DECISION IN CASE OF ALFA LEVE L LTD. VS. CIT 266 ITR 418. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE SALES TAX REFUN D IS TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF BUSINESS PROFIT UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND G AINS OF BUSINESS AND ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 7 THE SAME COULD NOT BE EXCLUDED WHILE CALCULATING DE DUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT IS A 100% EXPO RTER THEREFORE THE SALES TAX REFUND WAS CONSIDERED AS A PART OF PROFIT ON BUSINESS FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. NO DISTI NGUISHABLE FACTS CAME INTO NOTICE BEFORE US TO WHICH IT CAN BE ASSUM E THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT WRONG CONCLUSION. THE FINDING OF TH E CIT(A) IS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALFA LEVEL LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE INTERFER E WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ISSUE NO.8, 9 & 10:- 7. ISSUE NO.8, 9 AND 10 ARE INTERCONNECTED THEREFOR E, ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. UNDER THESE IS SUES THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IS THAT WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO POSITIVE INCOME FROM THE E XPORT OF 90% OF INCENTIVES AND OTHER INCOME, ARE REDUCED FROM PROFI T OF THE BUSINESS. BEFORE GOING FURTHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON RECORD:- 3.3 THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DEALT WITH IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC AT ALL IN VIEW OF T HE FINDING OF ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 8 THE A.O. THAT IF THE EXPORT INCENTIVES ARE EXCLUDED , THERE IS A NEGATIVE PROFIT. IN THIS REGARD, AFTER CAREFUL CON SIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE CLEAR AND FIRM OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO A WRONG CONCLUSION TH AT THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS NOT DERIVED ANY PROFITS FROM THE EXPORT BUSINESS. WHILE COMING TO THIS WRONG CONCLUSION, T HE A.O. HAS REDUCED THE GROSS EXPORT INCENTIVES OF RS.1,23,88,2 56/- FROM THE NET PROFIT OF RS.1,11,66,040/-. SINCE THIS GIV ES A MINUS FIGURE, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRE D LOSS IN THE EXPORT INCENTIVES AND OTHER RECEIPTS. IT IS GENERA LLY AN ACCEPTED FACT THAT 10% OF THE AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN EXPORT INC ENTIVES AND OTHER RECEIPTS, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE SAID EXPORT INCENTIVE AND OTHER RECEIPT S. THIS IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE ITAT, MUMBAI HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA ENG. CORPN. VS. ACIT (2003) 78 ITJ 347, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WH AT RELATES TO EXPORTS IS 90%, AS 10% CLEARLY IS THE EXPENDITUR E FOR EARNING OTHER INCOME. IT IS ALSO OF IMPORTANCE TO NOTE THA T WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC, ONE HAS TO PROCEED I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN THE INC OME TAX ACT. THE EXPORT PROFIT IS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER CLA USE (A), (B) OR (C) OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80HHC. ONLY I F THIS FIGURE IS NEGATIVE THEN THE APPELLANT CAN BE DENIED DEDUCT ION U/S.80HHC. ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 9 3.3.1 IN THE INSTANT APPELLANTS CASE THE WORKING WOULD BE BELOW:- NET PROFIT AS PER P & L A/C. RS.1,11,66,040 LESS: 90% OF THE RECEIPTS BEING INTEREST(NET) RS. N IL EXPORT INCENTIVES (I) DUTY DRAWBACK RS.87,51,735/- (II) ENTITLEMENT RS.35,30,613/- (III) QUOTA PREMIUM RS. 1,05,908 RS.1,23,88,256 90% THEREOF RS.1,11,49,430 PROFITS OF BUSINESS (+) RS. 16,610 PROF RATA EXPORT PROFITS (REFER 80 HHC(3)(A) RS. 16,610 3.3.2 THUS, SINCE THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE EXP ORT ACTIVITY IS A POSITIVE FIGURE, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION U/S.80HHC. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE AND GRANT DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THI S REGARD, IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT EVEN THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT F BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANGALYA TRAD ING & INVESTMENT LTD. VS. DCIT, SPL. RG. 20 IN ITA NO.6354/MUM/98 FOR A.Y.1995-96 WILL NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE APPELLANT GETTING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC, AS THERE IS A POSITIVE PROFIT AFTER REDUCING 90% OF TH E EXPORT INCENTIVES. ALSO IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE IT AT, MUMBAI H SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SURENDRA ENGI NEERING ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 10 CORPN. (SUPRA), THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO REDUCE 10% OF THE EXPORT INCENTIVES WHILE CALCULATING INDIRECT COST. 8. NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS WERE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO WHICH IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE FINDING GIVEN B Y THE CIT(A) IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS. THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI H SPECI AL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SURENDRA ENGINEERING CORPN. (SUPRA). FINDING NO CONTRARY VIEW TAKEN BY ANY OTHER COURT OF LAW, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER JUDICIOUSLY AND COR RECTLY WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. ISSUE NO.11 & 12:- 9. UNDER THE ABOVE SAID ISSUES THE REVENUE HAS CHAL LENGED THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,37,57, 005/- BY HOLDING THAT THE PURCHASES ARE FULLY EXPLAINED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WHEREAS THE SUPPLIER WERE NOT TRACEABLE. THE FINDING OF THE CI T(A) IS HEREBY REPRODUCED BELOW. 5.1 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARG UMENTS OF THE LD. A.R. I AM, HOWEVER, UNABLE TO AGREE THAT TH ERE WAS SOME COMPULSION ON THE APPELLANT IN MAKING THE PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FABRIC IN CASH. AFTER EXAMINING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, I FIND THAT TH E ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 11 AFORESAID PAYMENTS DO NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER FULE6DD. I, THEREFORE, H OLD THAT 20% OF THE AGGREGATE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.2,98,38,205/- (RS.2,39,57,005/- ADDED BACK BY TH E A.O. U/S.69A + RS.58,81,200/- CONSIDERED AS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE A.O.) WILL HAVE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.40A(3). THE DISALLOWANCE THUS COMES TO RS.59,67,641/-. HOWEVER, I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. A.R. THAT IF THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE, THE COST OF PURCHASES DECREAS ES TO THE SAME EXTENT AND THE APPELLANT BEING A 100% EXPO RTER, THE CONSEQUENT PROFITS OF BUSINESS INCREASES BY A LIKE AMOUNT. CORRESPONDINGLY, THE DIRECT COSTS WOULD GO DOWN AND DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WOULD STAND ENHANCED. THE NET RESULT WOULD BE THAT 80% OF THE ADDITION OF RS.59,67,641/- WOULD HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCT ION U/S.80HHC LEAVING ONLY THE BALANCE 20% AMOUNTING TO RS.11,93,528. CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE STATING THE QUAN TUM OF RELIEF GIVEN BY VIRTUE OF THIS ORDER, IN PARA 4. 2., I HAVE DIRECTED THAT RELIEF OF RS.2,27,63,475/- WOULD BE A VAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.2,39,57, 005/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS DIRECTION IS HO WEVER SUBJECT TO THE A.O. CARRYING OUT A VERIFICATION OF THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WHILE GIVING EFFECT T O ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 12 THIS ORDER. HE MAY RECOMPUTED 80HHC DEDUCTION IN T HE LIGHT OF MY DIRECTIONS. 10. THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN REMANDED BY THE CIT(A) T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE ALLOW ABLE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORD ER OF CIT(A). THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE QUE STION OF VERIFICATION WHILE IN THIS REGARD THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS AS DESIRED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE. N O JUSTIFIABLE FACTS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO TAKE THE CONTRARY VIE W OF THE SAID FINDING. MOREOVER THESE ISSUES ARE BASED UPON THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDER WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY , 2016. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& # /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( MUMBAI; )# DATED :20 TH JULY, 2016 MP MP MP MP ITA NO.301/MUM/05 A.Y.2001-02 13 * +%'#, -,(' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. * / CIT 5. -./ &&01 , 01' , ' ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /34 5 / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, - & //TRUE COPY// ./$ ! /(DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ( / ITAT, MUMBAI