M/S Prime Leather, Jalandhar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 532 of 2009DATE OF DECISION : 10.12.2009 M/s Prime Leather, Jalandhar .... APPELLANT Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate,for the appellant-assessee. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the orderdated 16.3.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AmritsarBench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') in ITA No. 18 (Asr)/2009, pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05, raising the followingsubstantial questions of law :- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in holding that the exportincentives of Rs. 38,23,143/- were not eligible profits forthe purpose of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act? In the present case, the assessee is engaged in the business ofmanufacture and sale of leather products. For the assessment year 2004-05,the assessee firm filed its return of income declaring an income ofRs.12,90,376/-. The return was processed under section 143 (1) (a) of theAct. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny and processed undersection 143 (3) of the Act. The Assessing Authority disallowed thededuction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IB of the Act, whileholding that the receipt of export incentives of Rs. 38,23,143/- was noteligible profit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act.Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar [hereinafter referred to as `the CIT (A)],who vide his order dated 29.10.2008 partly allowed the appeal. Against theaforesaid order, the assessee firm filed an appeal, which has been dismissedby the learned ITAT vide its order dated 16.3.2009. Against the said order,the instant appeal has been filed by the assessee raising the aforesaidsubstantial questions of law. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee could not controvert the fact that in the similar facts andcircumstances, the aforesaid question of law has already been decided bythis Court in favour of the revenue in the case of M/s Liberty Indiav. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2007) 293 ITR 520, which has been reliedupon by the learned ITAT in the aforesaid impugned order. The saiddecision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inLiberty India v.Commissioner of Income-Tax,(2009) 317 ITR 218. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we are of theopinion that no substantial question of law is arising from the order of theITAT. Thus, the instant appeal stands dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE December 10, 2009 ndj ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR )JUDGE