Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.721 of 2008Date of decision: 22.12.2008 M/s Accent for Living. Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. -----Appellant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:-Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate forMr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocatefor the appellant.----- ORDER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) againstthe order dated 9.5.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh “A” Bench in I.T.A. No.1032 /(DEL) of 2006 for theassessment year 2002-03, proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law:- “I. Whether the ITAT was justified in law in holding thatappellant was not entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB inrespect of profits and gains arising on account of dutydrawback, sale of replenishment licences andcurrency fluctuation which is intrinsically related/ connected to the business profits of the industrialundertaking. II. That the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justifiedin denying the claims of the appellant u/s 80IB of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by blindly relying upon thejudgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of LibertyIndia and other judgments which are distinguishableon facts itself. III. IV. That the ITAT is not justified in reversing the orders ofCIT(A) by holding that deduction u/s 80 HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is not available on dutydrawback and sale of replenishment licenses to theappellant which is against the latest judgment of theApex Court in the case of B.Des Raj Vs. CIT(SC).”Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case,the findings of the ITAT are perverse and against theevidences on record thus unsustainable in law.” V. Whether the ITAT has misdirected itself in beinginfluenced by irrelevant factors and applyingerroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibilityfor claiming deduction under section 80IB of theIncome Tax Act, 1961” The assessee claimed deduction in respect of income fromduty drawback under Section 80IB of the Act, on sale of replenishment licence and currency fluctuation. The same was disallowed on theground that the said income was not income derived from businessundertaking. Similar claim for deduction under Section 80 HHC of theAct was also made, which was also disallowed. Reliance was placedon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCIT v. Sterling Foods.237 ITR 579 and judgment of this Court inLiberty India v. CIT (2007)293 ITR 520. The view of the Assessing Officer was upheld by theTribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the view taken by the Tribunal,disallowing the claim of the assessee in respect of duty drawback is inaccordance with the view already taken by this Court. We are unable to hold that any substantial question of lawarises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )JUDGE December 22, 2008ashwani ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE