Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. Shri Rameshwar Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 14/2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur versus Shri Rameshwar Sharma Date of Order : 23[rd] May, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAINHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant. The matter has come for orders, as notice of respondent has received back unserved. Although, the appeal has been admitted, but we find that the point involved in the present case has already been decided against the revenue and similar matters have also been decided, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending by issuing fresh notice to the unserved respondent. 2.This appeal was admitted on 14[th] January, 2008, on the following substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing to allow deduction under Section 80HHC on export of marble blocks which were not polished as required vide item (x) of the 12[th] Schedule and ignoring the fact that there was no value addition in terms of cost of exported blocks as required in Circular No. 693 dated 17.11.1994?” 3.Learned counsel for the revenue/appellant does not dispute that the point involved in the present case has already been considered and decided by this Court 2 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax versus Arihant Tiles & Minerals (P) Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2013) 257 CTR (Raj.) 169. Paras 22 to 25 of the above referred judgment is reproduced, as under:- “22. In the present case, finding of the learned Tribunal is in favour of assessee-respondents and it has been categorically held that the assessee-respondents are eligible for deduction under s.80HHC of the Act for export of marble blocks, which were cut and polished.Thesefindingsare, indisputably, binding on this Court in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks & Sarees (supra). The appellant-Revenue has also not controverted that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on facts are not correct or are perverse. Therefore, the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal need not be gone into by us. 23. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the learned Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction under s.80HHC of the Act regarding export of cut and polished marble blocks during relevant years by the assessee-respondents. The appeals of the Revenue, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and the substantial question of law framed above is accordingly answered in favour of assessee-respondents and against the appellant-Revenue. 24.It is also pertinent to note that since the Circular No. 693 dt. 17[th ]Nov., 1994 has already been referred to anddiscussedalongwiththe substantial question of law framed in theseappealsforthesecond substantial question of law framed in Appeal No. 29 of 2008 regarding legal effect of Circular No. 693, It is also held that said circular does not adversely affect claims of the assessee-respondents and the assessees are entitled to benefit of deduction under s.80HHC of the Act. Thus, the 3 second substantial question of law framed in Appeal No. 29 of 2008 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee-respondent and against the appellant-Revenue.” 25.In view of the above, these appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 4.The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for the same reasons, which have been assigned in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Arihant Tiles & Minerals (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra). 3 second substantial question of law framed in Appeal No. 29 of 2008 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee-respondent and against the appellant-Revenue.” 25.In view of the above, these appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 4.The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for the same reasons, which have been assigned in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Arihant Tiles & Minerals (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra). 5.The substantial question of law framed in the present appeal is, accordingly, decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6.No order as to costs. (Mahendra Maheshwari),J. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Mak/-11 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Anil MakawanaJr. P.A.