Ita/69/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.poyilakada Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 ITA.No. 69 of 2008 --------------------------- (ORDER DATED 30-4-2003 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH IN TA.385/1999) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-1995) .................... APELLANT/APPELLANT: REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE. RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------------- M/S POYILAKKADA TRUST, PARAMESWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- I.T.A.No.69 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 20[th] day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.385 of 1999 for theassessment year 1994-95 filed by the Revenue. 2. The Tribunal, while granting relief to the assessee, hadmerely followed its earlier decision in I.T.A.No.466/1996 for theassessment year 1993-1994. 3. The Revenue being aggrieved by the orders passed bythe Tribunal in the aforesaid appeal, was before this Court inI.T.A.No.44 of 2002. This Court, by order dated 3[rd] June, 2003 waspleased to reject the Revenu's appeal and was pleased to answer thequestions of law framed in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. 4. The Revenue has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directingto recompute the deduction under section 80HHCby ignoring the loss derived from the export of I.T.A.No.69/2008 -2- trading goods? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, while computing deduction undersection 80HHC the loss derived from the export oftrading goods has to be excluded?” 5. Since the Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal for thesubsequent year has merely relied upon its earlier order passed inI.T.A.No.466 of 1996 which order has been confirmed by a Bench of thisCourt in I.T.A.No.44 of 2002, the questions of law framed by theRevenue requires to be answered against the Revenue and in favour ofthe assessee. 6. However, learned counsel for the Revenue would bringto our notice that there is a subsequent decision of the Apex Court whichwould come to the Revenue's aid. If that is so, we reserve liberty to theRevenue to make appropriate application before the Tribunal forappropriate orders in view of the subsequent decision rendered by theApex Court, if law permits. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE