Itta/7/2001 Of Commissioner Ofincome Tax Vizag v. M/S Fish Products Ltd Kakinada

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.7 of 2001 Date: 03.07.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax,Visakhapatnam. .....Appellant AND M/s Fish Products Limited.,Jagannaickpur, Kakinada ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.7 of 2001 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order ofthe learned Tribunal dated 24.04.2000 in relation to theassessment year 1992-93. This appeal was admitted on 24.1.2001, but no substantialquestion of law was formulated. So, on 21.06.2013, when thematter came up for hearing, this Court formulated the followingsubstantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in lawin affirming the judgment and order of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals)? (2) Whether the case of the assessee is coveredunder Rule 6DD(f)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules or inexception of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 196? After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant andgoing through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal, the whole issue centers round whether the prawn is afish or a fish product in order to bring it within the purview of Rule6DD(f)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The learned Tribunal, while confirming the judgment of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has held, in our view,correctly that “ the prawn should be termed as fish product”. Itappears from the provisions of Export Quality Control andInspection Act, 1963, the definition of the fish includes prawn. Soalso as per New Websters Dictionary. This view was accepted bythe learned Tribunal in its order confirming the judgment of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of East Coast Marine Products. This conclusion is correct in view of the factthat subsequently in December, 2008 by a Circular, theGovernment has issued the following clarifications for properimplementation of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: (i) The expression ‘fish or fish products’ usedin rule 6DD(e)(iii) would include ’other marine productsuch as shrimp, prawn, cuttlefish, squid, crab, lobsteretc.’, (ii) The ‘producers’ of fish or fish products’ forthe purpose of rule 6DD(e) of Income Tax Rules,1962 would include, besides the fishermen, anyheadman of fishermen, who sorts the catch of fishbrought by fishermen from the sea, at the sea-shoreitself and then sells the fish or fish products totraders, exporters, etc. It is settled position of law that clarification of legalprovision is always clarificatory in nature. The aforesaidclarification has been made obviously in the line of the judgmentrendered by the learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, theappeal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as tocosts. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall standdismissed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________ 03.07.2013 Gsn G.ROHINI, J