Ita/218/2010 Of The Commissionr Of Income Tax,Cochin v. M/S.abad Fisheries,Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 ITA.No. 218 of 2010() --------------------- ITA.567/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- M/S.ABAD FISHERIES, KOCHANGADI, KOCHI-2. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, ALONG WITH ITA 253 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ I.T.A. Nos. 218, 253, 257 & 262 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The main issue raised in all the appeals filed by the revenue iswhether the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) allowing assessee's claim of deduction under Section 10B ofthe I.T. Act which provides for deduction to 100 per cent of EOU. Theonly reason for making disallowance is that shipment of marineproducts was made by the assessee as a shipper in the name ofexporters. In other words, department's case is that assessee acted onlyas supporting manufacturer and the real export was made by the exporthouse, and the assessee acting only as a shipper. After hearingstanding counsel for the revenue, and after going through the orders ofthe Tribunal and records of the case we notice that the assesseereceived whole sale proceeds in foreign exchange and draw backincentives were also granted to the assessee. All this would indicatethat the assessee was treated as exporter for all purposes. We do not I.T.A.218/2010 and connected cases think the technical objection raised by the department can be a groundfor disallowance of Section 10B benefit which is an incentive forexport of goods by industries engaged in processing and manufacture.The facts found by the Tribunal establish beyond doubt that assesseewas rightly granted Section 10B benefit by the first appellate authority.We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.Consequently appeals are dismissed on this issue. Even thoughstanding counsel argued that the other issues raised in I.T.A.Nos. 253and 257 of 2010, which pertain to jurisdiction of CIT (Appeals) andalso the liability for interest under Section 234D we do not think weshould consider these issues because in the first place, the amountinvolved is not substantial and on the main issue we have dismissed theappeals. Even though one more question is raised relating to DEPBsale proceeds with reference to deduction under Section 80HHC, theposition is the same. I.T.As. are therefore dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.Judge. kk (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge.