M/s Shakti Impex, Ahmedgarh. V. ITO, Malerkotla

ITA 913/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9946 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 80IB; 10B; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.913/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S SHAKTI IMPEX, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGERA ROAD, WARD-IV(4), H.O. AHMEDGARH. MALERKOTLA. PAN: AAXFS1081J APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.05.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 16.7.2013 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11, AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF PROCESSING AND IMPORT OF HONEY, TRADING OF ZINC AND MUSTARD OIL. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD REC EIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.37,98,886/- AS DUTY DRAW BAC K AND 2 RS.1,83,14,528/- UNDER THE HEAD VISHESH KRISHI UP AJ YOJNA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON THESE REC EIPTS IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON HIS OWN OR DER IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEA L : THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO AR BITRARILY UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DIS ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS DUTY DRAW BACK AT RS. 37,98,866/- AND UNDER VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA AT RS. 1,83,14,528/-. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED BEFORE US THAT SIMILAR ISS UE WAS THERE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10, WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO.153/CHD/2013 DATED 6. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WE OBSERVE THAT S AME ISSUE WAS THERE BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT FIN DINGS ARE AT PARA 7 ONWARDS, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 7. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT SIMI LAR ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT ON THE RECEIPTS FROM VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YO JNA AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S LITTLE BEE IMPEX VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 03.01.2014, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER : 50. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD RECEIVED INCENTIVES FROM MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA @ 5% OF FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKE D INCENTIVES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND 2004- 05 ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE DETAILS OF THE INCENTIVES ACCRUED/RECEIVED WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS IS APPARENT FROM THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2008 PLA CED AT PAGES 65 TO 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO WHICH THE DETAILS WERE ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-I. THE SAID LICEN CES ARE GRANTED BY THE DGFT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND IS EQUIVALENT TO 5% OF FOB VALUE OF THE EXPORTS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN TURN IS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF SHIPPING BILLS/BRCS FILED WITH DGFT. THE VALUE OF LICENCES WORKED TO RS.2.23 CRORES ON EXPOR T SALES OF RS.46.46 CRORES FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND RS.76.33 LACS ON EXPORT SALES OF 16.17 CRORES RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. THE SAID LIC ENCES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RS.2.16 CRORES AND RS.61 LACS RESPECTIVELY TOTALING RS.2.78 CRORES. FURTHER AMOU NT OF RS.30 LACS WAS PROVIDED ON ESTIMATE BASIS FOR 4 PENDING LICENSES AND THE INCOME OF RS.2.80 CRORES W AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUA L SALE PRICE OF THE LICENCES/PROVISION. THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON THE SAME HAD BEEN CLAIMED AT RS.2,57,88,457/-. IN THE FIRST INSTANC E WHERE THE QUERIES HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IN TURN HAD BEEN REPLIED TO BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONE POSSIBLE VIEW OF ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN PASSED, THE ISSUE ARISES, WHETHER THE SAME IS OPEN TO REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BY WAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDE R SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO SUBSTITU TE ONE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ANOTHE R VIEW IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ORDER OF REVISION ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR NOT IS TO BE SEEN IN LINE WITH THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAID CLAIM IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 51. UNDER THE SAID SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IT IS PROVIDED THAT DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS A S ARE DERIVED BY A HUNDRED PER CENT EXPORTS ORIENTED UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS F ROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE THE ARTICLES OR THINGS, DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY ENGAGED INTO HUNDRED PER CEN T EXPORTS AND IS A HUNDRED PER CENT EOU UNIT. WE HAV E ALREADY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ENTITLED TO THE CLA IM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IN THE ABOVE SAID PARAS. NOW THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE SEEN IS WHETH ER THE RECEIPTS AS SUCH I.E. THE INCENTIVES RECEIVED U NDER VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA, WHICH IN TURN IS DETERMINED @ 5% AND THE FOB VALUE OF THE EXPORT SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING. BOTH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE HAVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAID DEDUCTION. 52. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID DECISION REFLECTS THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) WAS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ SS 80I/80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT WHICH ALSO PROVIDES FO R DEDUCTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROFITS DERIVED FRO M ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN LIBER TY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) OBSERVED AS UNDER : 5 THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BROADLY PROVIDES FOR TWO TYPES OF TAX INCENTIVES, VIZ., INVESTMENT-LINKE D INCENTIVES AND PROFIT-LINKED INCENTIVES. CHAPTER V I-A OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR INCENTIVES IN THE FOR M OF DEDUCTIONS ESSENTIALLY BELONGS TO THE CATEGORY OF PROFIT-LINKED INCENTIVES. THEREFORE, WHEN SECTIO N 80-IA/80-IB REFERS TO PROFITS DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, IT IS NOT THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT BUSINESS WHICH ATTRACTS THE INCENTIVES: WHAT ATTRACTS THE INCENTIVES UNDER SECTION 80-IA/80IB IS THE GENERATI ON OF PROFITS (OPERATIONAL PROFITS). IT IS FOR THIS R EASON THAT PARLIAMENT HAS CONFINED DEDUCTION OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS MENTIONED IN SUB- SECTIONS (3) TO (11A). EACH OF THE BUSINESSES MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTIONS (3) TO (11A) CONSTITUTES A STAND-ALONE ITEM IN THE MATTER OF COMPUTATION OF PROFITS. SECTIONS 80-IB AND 80-IA ARE A CODE BY THEMSELVES AS THEY CONTAIN BOTH SUBSTANTIVE AS WELL AS PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS. SECTION 80-IB PROVIDES FOR THE ALLOWING OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED F ROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE CONNOTATION OF THE WORD S DERIVED FROM IS NARROWER AS COMPARED TO THAT OF T HE WORDS ATTRIBUTABLE TO. BY USING THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM PARLIAMENT INTENDED TO COVER SOURCES NOT BEYOND THE FIRST DEGREE. SECTIONS 80-I, 80-IA AND 80-IB PROVIDE FOR INCENTIVES IN THE FORM OF DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE LINK ED TO PROFITS AND NOT INVESTMENT. ON ANALYSIS OF SECT IONS 880-IA AND 80-IB IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ANY INDUSTRI AL UNDERTAKING WHICH BECOMES ELIGIBLE ON SATISFYING SU B- SECTION (2) WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SU B- SECTION (1) ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF PROFITS DERIVED F ROM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AFTER THE SPECIFIED DAT E. APART FROM ELIGIBILITY, SUB-SECTION (1) PURPORTS TO RESTRICT THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION TO A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE PROFITS. THIS IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORDS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS AGAINST PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 53. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE WORD DERIVED FROM ARE NARROWER IN CONNOTATION AS COMPARED TO THE WORDS ATTRIBUTABLE TO. IN OTHER WORDS, BY USING THE EXPRESSION DERI VED 6 FROM, PARLIAMENT INTENDED TO COVER SOURCES NOT BEYOND THE FIRST DEGREE. ON AN ANALYSIS OF SECTIONS 80-IA AND 80-IB IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, WHIC H BECOMES ELIGIBLE ON SATISFYING SUB-SECTION (2) WOUL D BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AFTER SPECIFIED DATE(S). HENCE, APART FROM ELIGIBILITY, SUB-SECTION (1) PURPORTS TO RESTRICT T HE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION TO A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS. THIS IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORDS DERI VED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS AGAINST PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 54. THE APEX HON'BLE COURT THUS HELD AS UNDER : DEPB IS AN INCENTIVE. IT IS GIVEN UNDER THE DUTY EXEMPTION REMISSION SCHEME. ESSENTIALLY, IT I S AN EXPORT INCENTIVE. NO DOUBT, THE OBJECT BEHIND DEPB IS TO NEUTRALIZE THE INCIDENCE OF CUSTOMS DUTY PAYMENT ON THE IMPORT CONTENT OF EXPORT PRODUCT. T HIS NEUTRALIZATION IS PROVIDED FOR BY CREDIT TO CUSTOMS DUTY AGAINST EXPORT PRODUCT. UNDER DEPB, AN EXPORTER MAY APPLY FOR CREDIT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TH E FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS MADE IN FREELY CONVERTIBLE CURRENCY. CREDIT IS AVAILABLE ONLY AGAINST THE EXP ORT PRODUCT AND AT RATES SPECIFIED BY THE DGFT FOR IMPO RT OF RAW MATERIALS, COMPONENTS, ETC., DEPB CREDIT UND ER THE SCHEME HAS TO BE CALCULATED BY TAKING INTO ACCO UNT THE DEEMED IMPORT CONTENT OF THE EXPORT PRODUCT AS PER BASIC CUSTOMS DUTY AND SPECIAL ADDITIONAL DUTY PAYABLE ON SUCH DEEMED IMPORTS. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, DEPB/DUTY DRAWBACK ARE INCENTIVES WHICH FLOW FROM THE SCHEMES FRAMED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR FROM SECTION 75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962, HENCE, INCENTIVES PROFITS ARE NOT PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS UNDER SECTION 80-IB. THEY BELONG TO THE CATEGORY OF ANCILLARY PROFITS OF SUCH UNDERTAKINGS. 55. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) THE ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE INCENTIVES RECEIPTS UNDER THE VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA ARE THE RECEIPTS ON FIRST DEGREE AND ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. WHILE DENY ING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/SS 80I/80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT ON DEPB RECEIPTS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT(SUPRA) THAT THE OBJECT BEHIND DEPB IS TO NEUTRALIZE THE INCIDEN CE OF CUSTOMS DUTY PAYMENT ON THE IMPORT CONTENT OF EXPORT PRODUCT, WHICH WAS PROVIDED FOR BY WAY OF CREDIT TO CUSTOMS DUTY AGAINST EXPORT PRODUCT. THE EXPORTER WAS ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR CREDIT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE FOB VALUE OF EXPORT UNDER THE 7 INCENTIVE SCHEME OF GRANT OF DEPB. THE SAID CREDIT WAS AVAILABLE AT RATES SPECIFIED BY THE DGFT FOR IMPORT OF RAW MATERIAL/COMPONENTS ETC. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT FURTHER HELD THAT DEPB/DUTY DRAWBACK WERE INCENTIVES WHICH FLOW FROM THE SCHEMES FRAMED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 56. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THE COPY OF THE SCHEME OF VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA IS PLACED AT PAGES 20 AND 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE OBJECTIVE O F THE SAID SCHEME WAS TO PROMOTE THE EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THEIR VALUE ADDED PRODUCTS , MINOR FOREST PRODUCE, GRAM UDYOG PRODUCTS, FOREST BASED PRODUCTS AND OTHER PRODUCTS WHICH MAY BE NOTIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ENTITLEMENT TO THE SCHEME AS PER CLAUSE 3.13.2 IS AS UNDER: 3.13.2 DUTY CREDIT SCRIP BENEFITS AS GRANTED WITH AN AIM TO COMPENSATE HIGH TRANSPORT COSTS AND TO OFFSET OTHER DISADVANTAGES. EXPORTERS OF PRODUCTS NOTIFIED IN APPENDIX 37A OF HBPVL, SHALL BE ENTITLED FOR DUTY CREDIT SCRIP EQUIVALENT TO 5% OF FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS (IN FREE FOREIGN EXCHANGE) FOR EXPORTS MADE FROM 27.8.2009 ONWARDS. 57. UNDER CLAUSE 3.13.3 IT IS PROVIDED THAT DUTY CREDIT SCRIP BENEFITS UNDER THE SCHEME WOULD BE GRANTED ONLY AT THE REDUCED RATE OF 3% OF FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS IN CASES WHERE EXPORTER HAS AVAILED THE BENEFIT OF: (I) DRAWBACK AT RATES HIGHER THAN 1% AND/OR (II) SPECIFIC DEPB RATE (I.E. OTHER THAN MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORY SR.NOS.22C & 22D OF PRODUCT GROUP 90%); AND/OR (III) ADVANCE AUTHORIZATION OR DUTY FREE IMPORT AUTHORIZATION IMPORT OF INPUTS (OTHER THAN CATALYST, CONSUMABLE AND PACKING MATERIALS)FOR THE EXPORTED PRODUCT FOR WHICH DUTY CREDIT SCRIP UNDER VKGUY IS BEING CLAIMED. 58. FURTHER BENEFITS ARE ALSO GIVEN UNDER THE SCHEM E, BUT THE RELEVANT BENEFITS OF THE SCHEME VIS--VIS ASSESSEE ARE AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE ABOVE PARA . IN VIEW OF THE SCHEME UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE INCENTIVES WHICH IN TURN ARE TO COMPENSATE HIGH TRANSPORT COST AND TO OFFSET OTHER 8 ADVANTAGES TO THE EXPORTERS, AND ALSO IN VIEW OF TH E FACT THAT THE INCENTIVES ARE TO BE ALLOWED AT REDUC ED RATES WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF DUTY DRAWBACK, DEPB, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCENTIVES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE VISH ESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA AS AN EXPORT INCENTIVE WERE GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE TO NEUTRALIZE THE INCIDENCE OF HIGH TRANSPORT COST AND ALSO TO OFFSET OTHER DISADVANTAG ES. THE SAID NEUTRALIZATION AS IN THE CASE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS LINKED TO THE FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS BY WA Y OF DUTY CREDIT SCRIP. THE SAID BENEFITS ARE PROVID ED BY DGFT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID SCHEME BEING SIMILAR TO THE SCHEME OF GRANT OF DUTY DRAWBACK/DEPB AND IN TURN APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON THE SAID INCENTIVES . IN VIEW THEREOF, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF ENHANCEMENT PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN EXERCIS E OF ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSE D. 8. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE MOVED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND T HE TRIBUNAL IN CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN MA NOS. 3 TO 6/CHD/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-7 TO 2 009- 10 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2014 HELD AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. NO. 553/CHD/2011 HA D RAISED THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 10B OF THE ACT VIS--VIS THE PROFITS ON SALE OF INCENTI VES RECEIVED UNDER THE SCHEME VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA @ 5% OF FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS, RECEIVED FROM MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVT. OF INDIA. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 47 TO 59 AT PAGES 40 TO 48 HAD CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SCHEME UNDER WHICH INCENTIVES WERE RECEIVED AND ALSO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA V CIT (SUPRA). AFTE R HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON ITS PROFI TS FROM BUSINESS, THE OTHER ISSUE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNA L WAS WHETHER THE INCENTIVES RECEIVED UNDER VISHESH KRISH I UPAJ YOJNA WERE DERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING AND WE RE THUS, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF T HE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 56 AND 57 CONSIDERED THE SC HEME UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE INCENTIVE S AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INCENTIVES RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE UNDER THE SAID SCHEME WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO NEUTRALIZE THE INCIDENCE OF HIGH TRANSP ORT COST AND ALSO TO OFFSET OTHER DISADVANTAGE. THE TR IBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT THE SAID NEUTRALIZATION AS IN T HE CASE 9 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS LINKED TO THE FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS B Y WAY OF DUTY CREDIT SCRIP. THE SAID BENEFITS ARE PROVIDE D BY DGFT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID SCHEM E BEING SIMILAR TO THE SCHEME OF GRANT OF DUTY DRAWBACK/DEPB AND IN TURN APPLYING THE RATIO LAID D OWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT ON THE SAID INCENTIVES. 6. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FINDINGS, WE FIND NO MERIT I N THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TRI BUNAL IN MARAL OVERSEAS VS ADDL. CIT (SUPRA) AND MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ARTS & CRAFTS EXPORTS V ITO (SUPRA) HAD ALLOWED SIMILAR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXPORT BENEFIT S. THE SAID DECISIONS WERE REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUING THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND TH E SCHEME BEING SIMILAR AS TO THE SCHEME CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA V CIT (SUPRA ) AND FURTHER THE SCHEME CONSIDERED BY THE DIFFERENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL BEING AT VARIANCE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED . 9. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTI CAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FOLLOWING THE SAM E PARITY OF REASONING AS IN M/S LITTLE BEE IMPEX, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON RECEIPTS FROM VISHESH KRISHI UPA J YOJNA. 10. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH RE GARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON DUTY DRAW BACK. THE SAID ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT IS HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC ON DUTY DRAW BACK. THE RECEIPTS BEING SIMILAR AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA AND 80IC BEING PERIM ATERIA, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC ON DUTY DRAW BACK. 10 REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. SINCE NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS ARE BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COO RDINATE BENCH, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH MAY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH