ACIT, New Delhi v. M/s Leather Tech, New Delhi

ITA 4784/DEL/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 478420114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAFL1041J
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4784/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s Leather Tech, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 18-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-02-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 18-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4784/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 22(1) NEW DELHI VS. LEATHER TECH D-43 OKHLA INDL. AREA PHASE II NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN : AAAFL 1041 J APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANOOP KUMA R SINGH SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGGARWAL AD V. O R D E R PER: C.L. SETHI J.M. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FAC TS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RECOMPUTED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT ON THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON DEPB. 2. ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FAC TS IN WRONGLY PRESUMING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F ULFILLED BOTH THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PROVI SO UNDER SECTION 80HHC (3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 4784/DEL/2009 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E INVOLVED IS ABOUT THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 HHC ON THE SAL E PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON DEPB. 4. THIS ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) BY O BSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. FROM THE ABOVE IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT ON THE SALE OF DEPB I.E. AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF SALE PROCEEDS OVER THE FACE VALUE IS COVE RED UNDER SECTION 28(IIID). THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS A LSO HELD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF DEP B ENTITLEMENT WOULD NOT REPRESENT THE PROFIT CHARGEAB LE UNDER SECTION 28 (IIID). THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE TRIBUNAL IS BINDING ON ME BEING A HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM [SEE: NOKIA CORPORATION V. DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXAT ION) (2007) 292 ITR 22 (DELHI)]. THUS THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80 HHC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL AS CITED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 TO 9. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RE-COMPU TE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BE NCH OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. I.T.O. REPORTED IN (2009) 125 TTJ (MUMBAI)(SB) 289 . HOWEVER THE AO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH REFERRED TO ABOVE OR TO APPLY ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT DECISION THAT MAY BE RENDERED ITA NO. 4784/DEL/2009 PAGE 3 OF 3 IN THE MEANTIME THE AO SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED WITH ABOVE OBSERVATION. 7. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (C.L. SETHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH FEBRUARY 2010 *NITASHA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR