IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH : `C : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGARWAL, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI C.M. GARG., JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.3083/Del /2013
Assessment Year : 2002-03
ACIT, Circle-33(1), Vs. M/s. Hansita
New Delhi. C/o Ajay Bhalla, W-78A
Greater Kailash-II,
New Delhi.
(PAN AAAFM 3310 G)
C.O No.196/Del/2013
A.Y.2002-03
M/s Hansita Vs. ACIT, Circle-33(1)
C/o Ajay Bhalla, W-78A New Delhi.
Greater Kailash-II
New Delhi.
(PAN AAAFM 3310 G)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Satpal Singh, Sr.D.R.
Respondent by: Shri G.N. Gupta, Advocate.
ORDER
PER SHRI C.M. GARG, JM:
1. This appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross objection of the assessee
have been directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi
dated 28.02.2013 in appeal No.033/2010-11 for AY. 2002-03.
2. The sole ground raised by the Revenue reads as under:
"1. The CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed the
deduction u/s 80HHC of the IT Act despite the fact that the
ITA No.3083/Del /2013 2
CO No.196/Del/2013
assessee itself had not claimed only deduction u/s 80HHC its
return of income filed u/s 148 of the IT Act."
3. Apropos aforementioned sole ground of the Revenue we have heard rival
arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed
on record before us, inter alia assessment order, impugned order of CIT(A)
revised computation filed by the assessee and decisions relied by both the parties
including decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of
CIT(A) Sam Global Securities Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi).
4. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the CIT(A) has
erred in directing the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 30HHC of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) despite the fact that the assessee itself had not
claimed any deduction in this return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act.
5. The ld. counsel for the assessee replied that the assessee submitted the
claim u/s 80HHC of the Act was submitted by revised computation of income
on 03.11.2009 filed before the AO which was accepted by the deduction u/s
80HHC of the Act has reduced to zero without any basis. The ld. counsel further
contended that the CIT(A) rightly followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT Mumbai (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC)
and extended the benefit to the assessee. The ld. counsel further submitted that
in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sam
Global Securities Ltd. (Supra) the claim u/s 80HHC is submitted by way of
revised computation of income is allowable even if the same was not placed in
original return of income.
ITA No.3083/Del /2013 3
CO No.196/Del/2013
6. On careful consideration of above submissions we observe that the AO
accepted the revised computation of income wherein the assessee placed claim
of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act but reduced the deduction to Zero without
any justified reason. On appeal before the CIT(A), the same claim was allowed
following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topman
Exports (Supra), the relevant operative part of impugned order reads as under:
"9. Keeping in view the observations made, in the aforesaid
paragraphs by the Hon'ble Suprme Court of India, in the case of Topman
Exports Vs. CIT, Mumbai (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC), I am of the opinion that
the issue involved in the present appeal stands covered by the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, and
therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in taking the view in the
impugned judgment that the entire sale proceeds of the DEPB realized on
transfer of the DEPB, and not just the difference between the sale value
and the face value of the DEPB represent profit on transfer of the DEPB.
Respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Topman Exports v. CIT (supra), I direct the AO to compute the
deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, in line with the directions of the
Hon'ble Court (supra) after giving a reasonable opportunity to the
assessee."
7. Under facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered
opinion that the grievance of the department is squarely covered in favour of the
assessee by the decision of Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in the case of CIT Vs.
Sam Global (Supra) and respectfully following the same, we hold that the
CIT(A) was right in accepting the revised computation at income wherein the
assessee submitted claim of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act which was not
placed in the original computation of income.
8. At the same time, we also observe that the CIT(A) was also right in
following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports
ITA No.3083/Del /2013 4
CO No.196/Del/2013
Vs. CIT (supra) and directing the AO to recomputed the deduction u/s 80HHC
as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, we are unable to see
any perversity, ambiguity or any other valid reason to interfere with the
impugned order and we upheld the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the
Revenue is dismissed.
Cross objection of the assessee
9. Since by earlier part of this order, we have upheld the order of the
CIT(A), which granted relief for the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue. Hence, cross objections filed by the assessee only to support the
impugned order not survive for adjudication in detail on merits. Therefore, cross
objections of the assessee are also dismissed.
10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross objections of the
assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11/12/2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.D. AGARWAL) (C.M. GARG)
VICE PRESIDENT Judicial Member
Dated: 11/12/2014.
AK. VERMA/-
Copy forwarded to
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
|
