ITO Ward-3, Panipat V. Handfab India, Panipat

MA 35/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6891 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

MA NOS. 35, 36, & 37/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI FRIDAY BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS. 35, 36 & 37/DEL/2011 (IN I.T.A. NOS.3083, 3084 & 3085/DEL/2008) A.YRS. : 2000-01, 2002-03 & 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, PANIPAT VS. HANDFAB INDIA, MAHAVIR COLONY, PANIPAT (PAN: AAAFH-7577-B) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. GURJEET SINGH, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM BY WAY OF THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS THE REVENUE SEEKS REC TIFICATION OF MISTAKE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NOS. 3083, 3084 & 3085/DEL/2008 DATED 20.9.2010 FOR THE A.YRS. 2000- 01, 2002-03 & 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. THE OPERATIV E PORTION OF THE AFORESAID ORDER READ AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND EXPORT ER OF HANDLOOM PRODUCTS AND ON THE RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPB TRANSFERRED, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MA NOS. 35, 36, & 37/DEL/2011 2 THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS). NOW WE FIND THAT THAT THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S TOPMAN EXPORTS WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BY THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. KALPATARU COLOURS AND CHEMICALS IN ITA NO. 2887 OF 2009. 5. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE DE EM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH, IN LIGHT OF THE LATEST POSITION OF THE LAW IN THIS REGARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 2. IN THE ABOVE MISC. APPLICATIONS, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRM ED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS RIGHT AND ACCO RDING TO THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF LAW. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION S IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON, WE FIN D THAT TRIBUNAL HAD AFTER A PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LA W ON THE ISSUE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CON SIDER THE SAME, AS PER LATEST POSITION OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION, THERE IS NO MA NOS. 35, 36, & 37/DEL/2011 3 MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE SAID ORDER WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE MISC. APPLICATIONS F ILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/9/2011, UP ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- [C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 16/9/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES