The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnal v. Sh. Sushil Kumar Gupta

I.T.A. No. 520 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 520 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 10.09.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ..........Appellant Versus Sh. Sushil Kumar Gupta,..........RespondentProp. M/s Aalishan Exports, 509-L, ModelTown, Panipat. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocatefor the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The assessee claimed benefit under Section 80HHC in respectof income derived in the form of duty drawback, which was not allowed.The assessee challenged denial of benefit under Section 80HHC on theduty drawback. His plea has been upheld by the CIT(A) as well by theTribunal. The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of CIT Vs. Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323and judgment of this Court in CIT Vs. Carpet India & Others (rendered inITA No. 544 of 2007 decided on 13.1.2008). 2.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3.The observations of the CIT(A) are as under:- “I have considered the submissions of the assessee and facts of the case. The facts and circumstances of thecase are similar to the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2002-03. Therefore, respectfully following the decisionsin Appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of the assesseeand the decision has cited above in various cases byITAT, Delhi. The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s80HHC as supporting manufacturer and exporter.Accordingly assessee is allowed deduction u/s 80HHCon the amount of Duty draw back, but no deduction isallowed u/s 80HHC on the amount of DEPB received bythe assessee because the turnover of the assessee ismore than Rs. 10 crores and the rate of DEPB is alsomore than the rate of Duty Draw Back, therefore, it doesnot fulfill the conditions mentioned in the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 80HHC as introduced by theTaxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 No. 55 of 2005-06. In result, the ground of appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed.” 4.The above observations have been affirmed by the Tribunal 5.The order of the Tribunal, being in consonance with thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme and this Court, no substantial question oflaw arises. 6.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 10, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No