SARAF EXPORT, CHURU V. ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 319/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1202 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENA JEPH JCIT DHK
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 319/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14. M/S. SARAF EXPORT RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARDARSHAHAR, DISTT. CHURU. CUKE VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AATFS 9394 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH OJHA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/11/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10 TH JANUARY, 2018 OF LD. CIT (A)-3, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SH OULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE LEGAL GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE APPEAL I N VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA MODI. 3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SH OULD HAVE ADJUDICATED ON THE ARGUMENT SUBMITTED DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING. 4. THAT REJECTION OF THE CLAIM IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DEDUCTION SO ALLOWED IN THE INITIAL YEAR CANNOT BE REJECTED IN S UBSEQUENT YEARS AND IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT OF M/S. MEGHALAY STEE LS LTD. 2 ITA NO. 319/JP/2018 M/S. SARAF EXPORTS, CHURU. 5. THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE PROVISION AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE WAS NOT APPRECIATED AND ACCEPTED. 6. THAT THE CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E EVIDENCE SO USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEHIND THE BACK AND O RDER PASSED BY HIM IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF DUTY DRAWBACK. TH E ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN PARA 4.3 AS UND ER :- 4.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL BEF ORE ME. I FIND THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT REPORTED IN 317 ITR 218 (SC) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS OF DUTY DRAWBACK AND DEFB DO NOT FORM PART OF THE NET PROFIT OF ELIG IBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I/80IB OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IN THE APPELLANT OWN CASE THE HON BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 HELD THAT THE DECISION O F THE SUPREME COURT OF LIBERTY INDIA IS APPLICABLE ON THE APPELLANT. T HEREFORE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) AND HONBLE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT IN THE APPELLANT OWN CASE. I AM THE VIEW THAT DUTY DRAWBACK AMOUNT OF RS. 35,9 8,248/- IS NOT FORM PART OF NET PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE UNDER TAKING FO R THE PURPOSE OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 80I B ON DUTY DRAWBACK. 3 ITA NO. 319/JP/2018 M/S. SARAF EXPORTS, CHURU. HENCE I CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT ALLOWED. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FA CT THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE AND HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE CLAIM SHOULD H AVE DECIDED EACH AND EVERY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ONLY ISSU E ARISES IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDE R SECTION 80IB AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. ONCE THE IS SUE IS SETTLED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, T HEN THE SAID DECISION IS BINDING ON THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS ON THIS TRIBUNAL EXCEPT REVERSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/11/2 018. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 27/11/2018. DAS/ 4 ITA NO. 319/JP/2018 M/S. SARAF EXPORTS, CHURU. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S. SARAF EXPORTS, CHURU. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 319/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 5 ITA NO. 319/JP/2018 M/S. SARAF EXPORTS, CHURU.