M/S Deva Singh Sham Singh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.180 of 2007 Date of decision: 10.2.2011 M/s Deva Singh Sham Singh -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocatefor the appellant. for the appellant. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Standing Counselfor respondents.for respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the assesseeunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “theAct”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar in I.T.A. No.25(ASR)/2006 for the assessment year2001-02 raising following substantial questions of law:- “(i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the learned CIT was justified in arriving atthe conclusion that the deduction u/s 80 HHC isnot allowable against current year export income?case, the learned CIT was justified in arriving atthe conclusion that the deduction u/s 80 HHC isnot allowable against current year export income?(ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, brought forward losses and unabsorbeddepreciation have priority to be set off ascompared to the deduction under Section 80 HHCfor the current year?case, brought forward losses and unabsorbeddepreciation have priority to be set off ascompared to the deduction under Section 80 HHCfor the current year? (iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, a liberal construction should be put upon thelanguage of the statute while interpreting theprovision of Section 80 HHC?”case, a liberal construction should be put upon thelanguage of the statute while interpreting theprovision of Section 80 HHC?” The assessee is an exporter and claimed deductionunder Section 80 HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officerassessed the assessee at nil income but the Commissionerinvoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on the groundthat benefit of Section 80 HHC could not be given by taking intoaccount brought forward losses. This view has been upheld bythe Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that theview taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law laiddown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inIPCA Laboratory Ltd.v.Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai(2004) 12 SCC 742and Synco Industries Ltd.v. Assessing Officer, Income Tax,Mumbai and another(2008) 4 SCC 22. In view of above, the view taken by the Tribunal has tobe upheld and the questions raised on behalf of the assesseehave to be answered against it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 10, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE