Home Tex,77,Sector 29, Huda, Panipat v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnal

Income Tax Appeal No.477 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:- 4.12.2009 Home Tex,77,Sector 29, HUDA, Panipat ---Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ---Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:-Mr.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.(ORAL) The assessee has filed the instant appeal under section 260-Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.3.2008 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as“the ITAT”) in ITA No.949/Del/2007, in the case of assessee for theAssessment Year 2003-2004, raising the following substantial questions oflaw:- I. Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable being expartewhich is against the principles of justice for granting“opportunity” of being heard?which is against the principles of justice for granting“opportunity” of being heard? II. Whether the Duty draw back received is an amountderived and eligible for claim u/s 80IB?derived and eligible for claim u/s 80IB? III.Whether the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Schemereceived is an amount derived and eligible for claim u/s80IB?received is an amount derived and eligible for claim u/s80IB? IV.Whether on the true and correct interpretation of theprovisions of sec.80HHC r.w. section 80IA(9) r.w.provisions of sec.80HHC r.w. section 80IA(9) r.w. Income Tax Appeal No.477 of 2009 2 Section 80IB(13) the Tribunal has erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act? Learned counsel for the assessee very fairly concedes that allthe aforesaid substantial questions have already been decided against theassessee by this Court in Liberty Indiav.Commissioner of Income Tax(2007) 293 ITR 520, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt of India in Liberty Indiav.Commissioner of Income Tax(2009)317 Income Tax Reports 218 (SC). In view of above, this appeal is dismissed, as no substantialquestion of law is arising from the impugned order. (Satish Kumar Mittal) Judge 4.12.2009AS (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge