The Commissioner Of Incometax, Tiruchirapalli-1 v. M/S.prem Textiles International,Karur, G.k.ramakrishnapuram, Karur

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 25.10.2018 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.128 of 2010 The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Tiruchirapalli-1 ...Appellant/Respondent Vs M/s.Prem Textiles International,Karur, G.K.Ramakrishnapuram, Karur. ...Respondent/Appellant Prayer:APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 21.4.2009 in ITA No.1795/Mds/2008 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 1999-2000, against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchy dated 06.08.2008made in ITA No.445/06-07, preferred against the order dated05.12.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, madein AAAFP4219-L. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent : Mr.Quadir Hoseyn Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J)Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging theorder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inITA.No.1795/Mds/2008 for the assessment year 1999-2000.3. This appeal has been admitted on 29.3.2010 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theassessee, a supporting manufacturer, wasentitled to deduction under Section 80HHC inrespect of the DEPB and duty drawback andsimilar incentives disclaimed in its favourby the exporter ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theassessee, a supporting manufacturer, wasentitled to deduction under Section 80HHC inrespect of the DEPB and duty drawbackdisclaimed in its favour by the exporterwithout taking note of the Third Proviso toSub-Section (3) of Section 80HHC and thedifference between the provisions of Sub-Sections (3) and (3A) of Section 80HHC? iii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal had any material to come to theconclusion that the DEPB and duty drawbacketc. benefits received by the assessee byvirtue of disclaimer issued by the exporterin its favour should be regarded as part ofsale consideration when such benefits couldnot be treated as export benefits underSection 28(iiia) etc. ? And iv. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that thedecision of the Supreme Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Baby MarineExports (290 ITR 323) was applicable to theassessee's case without noticing that thesaid case related to export premium whereasin the assessee's case, the issue related toDEPB/duty drawback, etc. disclaimed in itsfavour by the exporter?” 4. It may not be necessary for us to answer the abovesubstantial questions of law, as the monetary limit in thisappeal is lesser than the amount fixed by the circularinstructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. ThisCourt had an occasion to consider the effect of those circularsin TCA.No.395 of 2018 dated 24.7.2018, the relevant portions ofwhich are as follows : “4. Further, it is relevant to notethat by Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ monetary limit has further been increasedand appeals be maintainable before the HighCourts. It has been increased toRs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have beenfiled. 4. It may not be necessary for us to answer the abovesubstantial questions of law, as the monetary limit in thisappeal is lesser than the amount fixed by the circularinstructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. ThisCourt had an occasion to consider the effect of those circularsin TCA.No.395 of 2018 dated 24.7.2018, the relevant portions ofwhich are as follows : “4. Further, it is relevant to notethat by Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ monetary limit has further been increasedand appeals be maintainable before the HighCourts. It has been increased toRs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have beenfiled. 5. Thus, by applying the above Circularissued by the CBDT, this appeal ought not tohave been filed by the Revenue and hence,for that reason, this tax case appeal isdismissed and the substantial questions oflaw, framed for consideration, are leftopen.” 5. In the light of the above, the above appeal is dismissed.No costs. The substantial questions of law are left open forconsideration. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchy.,3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Tiruchy. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchy. 5.The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, III Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.RaviKumar, Advocate Sr.73277+1cc to Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate Sr.73647 TCA.No.128 of 2010 sv[co]srg 22/11/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/