IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
I.T.A. No. 917 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 23.11.2009
Commissioner of Income-tax
.... APPELLANT
Versus
M/s Sheena Industries, Ujha Road, Panipat
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate,
for the appellant-revenue.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), against the order
dated 31.8.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
Bench, `I’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT’) in ITA No.
1228/Del/2006, pertaining to the assessment years 2002-03, raising the
following substantial questions of law :-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, learned ITAT was right in law in upholding the
order of the CIT (A), directing the A.O to allow
deduction u/s 80 HHC on export incentives, received by
the assessee, as a supporting manufacturer in the same
manner, as in the case of direct exporter?”
ITA No. 917 of 2008 -2-
In the present case, the assessee is a partnership firm deriving
income from the manufacturing and sale of textile goods to M/s IKEA
Trading (India) Ltd., (an Export/Trading House) as supporting
manufacturer. In the assessment framed under Section 143 (3) of the Act,
the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee for
computing deduction allowable to him under Section 80 HHC of the Act as
per the provision of Section 80 HHC (1A) read with Section 80 HHC (3A)
read with clause (baa) of explanation of Section 80 HHC of the Act, as the
respondent is a supporting manufacturer, and allowed deduction of
Rs.1,40,49,120/- under Section 80 HHC of the Act, instead of
Rs.7,19,78,869/-, as claimed by the assessee. On appeal by the assessee, the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal, set aside the order of the
Assessing Officer and held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction
under Section 80 HHC of the Act, as supporting manufacturer in the same
manner, as in the case of direct exporter. The said decision of the CIT (A)
has been upheld by the ITAT vide order dated 31.8.2007, against which the
instant appeal has been filed, raising the aforesaid substantial question of
law.
After hearing counsel for the appellant, we find that in ITA No.
296 of 2008, filed by the revenue, the similar substantial question of law
was raised to the following effect :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the
ITA No. 917 of 2008 -3-order of the CIT (A), directing the Assessing Officer to
allow deduction under section 80 HHC to the assessee
who is a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as
in the case of direct exporter, treating the supporting
manufacturer at par with direct exporter and ignoring the
provisions of Section 80 HHC (1A) read with Section 80
HHC (3A) read with clause (baa) of explanation to
Section 80 HHC of the Act?”
The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by this Court, while relying upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,
Thiruvanantapuram v. Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC),
and upheld the claim of the assessee under Section 80 HHC of the Act as a
supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter. This fact has not
been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant.
In view of the above, no substantial question of law survives
for our determination. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the
same is, hereby, dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
November 23, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR )
ndj JUDGE