Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI , Lucknow V. M/s. P.N.International , Lucknow

ITA 7/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78601 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K ARORA
• Keywords: Deemed export
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.07/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 DY.CIT - VI, LUCKNOW. VS. M/S P. N. INTERNATIONAL, C - 12, AMAUSI INDUSTRIAL AREA, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAGFP4825J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. K. ARORA, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 02/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 /07/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 09/11/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.1,52,88,773/ - TREATING 'DEEMED EXPORT' TO BE 'DOMESTIC SALES' FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING DEDUCTION AVAILABLE U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT. HE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, BANGLORE IN THE CASE O F TATA ELEXI LTD., VS. ASSTT. CIT (2008) 115 TTJ BANGLORE 423. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONSIDERING THE NET FOREIGN EXCHANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S 10B TO BE RS.32,01,41,516/ - AS AGAINST RS.30,48,52, 743/ - WORK OUT BY THE A.O. 2 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS, AS STATED ABOVE, AS AND WHEN NEED TO DOING SO ARISES WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE COURT. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN I.T.A. NO.569/LKW/2011 DATED 27/12/2013, AND COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 97 TO 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR OF REVENUE AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEA R. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 7 /07/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR