The Commissioner Of Incometax, Tiruchirapalli-1 v. M/S.r.k.textiles, Karur,22, Kamarajapuram West,Karur-639 002

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2010 The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Tiruchirapalli-1 ...Appellant/Respondent Vs M/s.R.K.Textiles, Karur,22, Kamarajapuram west,Karur-639 002. ...Respondent/Appellant Prayer:APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 21.4.2009 in ITA No.1533/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) dated 26.6.08 made inITA.No.487/06-07, against the order dated 27.12.06 passed by theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, inAAAFR6620H/Cir/11/Try. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent : Mr.Quadir Hoseyn 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.1533/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. ? Andiv. 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 note that by CircularNo.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018, monetary limit has further beenincreased and appeals be maintainable before the High Courts. Ithas been increased to Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have been filed. 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. “4. Further, it is relevant to note that by CircularNo.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018, monetary limit has further beenincreased and appeals be maintainable before the High Courts. Ithas been increased to Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have been filed. 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 RegistrarTo 1.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. TCA.No.129 of 2010 ssv[co]srg 22/11/2018