D. B. Income Tax Appeal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Churu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT. D. B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.228/2011 M/s. Saraf Export, RIICO Industrial Area, Sardarshahar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Churu. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 27.02.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. SAPREHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr.Shree Kant Verma, for Appellant (s). BY THE COURT: We find that this appeal is barred of limitation byeleven days. We have perused the record with a view to findout whether appeal involved any substantial question of lawwithin the meaning of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1961'). This is appeal appeal filed by the assessee underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated28.07.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No.171/Jod/2011. Having perused the record of the case, we are of theconsidered opinion that appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section260A of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. The question arises out of assessment year, 2007-08.The question was whether amount received from thescheme known as DPEB and duty draw back receipts by theassessee would qualify for claiming deduction under Section80IB of the Income Tax Act or in other words, whether itcan be said to be an income derived from an industrialundertaking and can be thus construed as income derivedfrom the business carried on in such industrial undertakingfor the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IB ofthe Act. The taxing authorities, i.e. A.O., C.I.T. (Appeals) andlastly, Tribunal, very rightly came to a conclusion that theissue involved in the case in hand no longer remains resintegra and decided by the authoritative decision of theSupreme Court rendered in the case of Liberty India v.C.I.T., 317 I.T.R.218. It is in this case, the Supreme Court,while interpreting this very provision, held that an incomederived from such schemes under the Excise Act cannot besaid to be an income derived from the business carried onin such undertaking for the purpose of claiming deductionunder Section 80IB of the Act. The issue was accordinglyanswered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue. In our opinion, therefore, when the issue is alreadydecided by the Supreme Court, then, the authoritiesconcerned had to place and rightly placed reliance upon thesaid decision thereby declined to grant any relief to theappellant (assessee) while calculating the deductionavailable with Section 80 IB. The decision relied upon by the assessee reported in251 I.T.R.587, M/s. Saraf Seasoning Udyog v. C.I.T., in ouropinion, was a decision rendered prior to the decision ofSupreme Court in Liberty India and, hence was of nouse and rightly not relied upon for the purpose of grantingany benefit to the assessee in the facts of this case. Accordingly and in the light of the foregoingdiscussion, we are of the considered view that this appealdoes not involve any substantial question of law and henceit is dismissed in limine. (C. M. TOTLA), J. (A.M.SAPRE), J. scd