Transformers & Rectifiers (India) Ltd.,, Dist. Ahmedabad v. The ACIT, Circle-8,, Ahmedabad

ITA 950/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 95020514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAAFT9000B
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 950/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Transformers & Rectifiers (India) Ltd.,, Dist. Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT, Circle-8,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 18-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 20-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 20-01-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 02-03-2007
Judgment Text
1 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : C BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBLE SH RI D.C. AGRAWAL A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 950/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-2004 TRANSFORMERS & RECTIFIERS (INDIA) LIMITED -VS. - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD (PAN : AAAFT 9000 B) CIRCLE-8 AHMEDAB AD (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) & I.T.A. NO. 1348/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-2004 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS.- TRANSFORMERS & RECTIFIERS (INDIA) LTD. CIRCLE-8 AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DIPAK R. THAK KAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI M.C. PANDIT SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2006 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-XIV AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AP PEAL IS AS UNDER :- THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAY MENT @ 20% AMOUNTING TO RS.4 60 000/- U/S. 40A(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. DISALLOWED RS.4 60 000/- UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MA DE SALES TO B.E.S.T. A BUS SERVICES OF MUMBAI AND UNDERTAKING OF BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANAGAR P ALIKA AND THEY MADE PAYMENT OF RS.23 55 955/- IN CASH IN SMALL DENOMINATIONS. IT W AS NOT POSSIBLE TO BRING THIS AMOUNT FROM MUMBAI TO AHMEDABAD AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE MA DE THE CASH PAYMENT TOTALING TO RS.23 00 000/- TO THE FOLLOWING TWO PARTIES IN MUMB AI NAMELY (1) M/S. NATIONAL LAMINATE INDUSTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.10 LAKHS AND (2) M/S. AP AR INDUSTRIES LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.13 LAKHS. 2 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING THAT REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CA SH PAYMENT PROVIDED EARLIER IN RULE 6DD(J) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES HAS BEEN DECIDED AND THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 6DD. AGGRIEVED BY THIS OR DER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE SHR I DIPAK R. THAKKAR APPEARED AND CONTENDED AS UNDER :- (I) CASH OF RS.23 55 855/- RECEIVED FROM LOCAL BUS SERV ICES B.E.S.T. MUMBAI WHO WAS A DEBTOR OF THE COMPANY. (II) MAIN SOURCES OF THEIR INCOME FROM SALE OF BUS TICKETS FROM PASSENGERS. THEREFORE THEY ARE IN RECEIPT OF CASH IN SMALL DENOMINATION I.E. RS.5/- RS.10/- RS.20/- AND COI NS. (III) IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO CARRY THEIR HUGE CAS H IN FORM OF SMALL DENOMINATION FROM MUMBAI TO AHMEDABAD. (IV) THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS REQUESTED THEIR SUPPLIERS TO ACCEPT THIS CASH. (V) DUE TO GENUINE DIFFICULTY ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS PAID RS.10 00 000/- TO NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES AN RS.13 00 000/- TO APAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED BASED AT MUMBAI. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT IN CASH. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT IN DISPUTE ALL THE EVIDENCES THAT PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED FROM BEST AND PAID TO THE AFORESAID TWO PA RTIES WERE FURNISHED. IN VIEW OF THIS THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RELIEF FOR P AYMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE ALLOWED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS :- (I) OBJECTION OF SECTION 40A(3) IS TO PREVENT CIRCULATI ON OF BLACK MONEY; (II) GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT CHALLENGED NOR FOUND BOGUS; (III) IDENTITY OF PAYEE IS NOT DOUBTED NOR IN A QUESTION; (IV) HARDSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY NOT TAKEN INTO CON SIDERATION BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ; (V) NO INVOLVEMENT OF ANY BLACK MONEY; 3 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 (VI) CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO SUPPLIERS IN CITY OF MUMB AI ON THE SAME DAY ON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FROM DEBTORS A BEST BUS SERVICES OF MUMBAI. IN SUPPORT OF THIS THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- (I) CIT- VS.- CPL TANNERY [(2009) 318 ITR 179] (KOL.); (II) SARAL MOTORS & GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED VS.- ACIT [ (2009) 316 ITR (AT) 412] (DEL.); (III) TAM TAM PEDDA GURVA REDDY VS.- JCIT (ASSESSMENTS) & ANOTHER [(2007) 291 ITR 44](KARN.); (IV) CIT VS.- REGENCY EXPRESS BUILDERS P. LTD. [(2007) 291 ITR 55] (DEL.); (V) CIT VS.-CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED [(2009) 314 ITR 2 31] (MAD.). 5. SHRI M.C. PANDIT SR. D.R. APPEARING ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT COVE RED BY THE EXCEPTION MENTIONED IN RULE 6DD. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IF THE SUPPLIER OF THE ASSESSEE CAN ACCEPT SMALL DENOMINATION NOTES AND WAS AVAILED TO PAY THE SAME IN THEIR BANK A/C. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PERSUADED ITS CLIENTS NAMELY B.E.S.T. A BUS SERVICES OF MUMBAI AND UNDER TAKING OF BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA TO OBTAIN BANK DRAFT AT MUMBAI. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CASH PAYMENT PROVIDED EARLIER IN RULE 6DD(J) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES HAS BEEN DELETED AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED UNDER ANY OF TH E PROVISIONS OF RULE 6DD. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE IS RIGHTLY MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED WITH R EGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT- VS.- CPL TANNERY (SU PRA) THAT THE DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF RULE 6DD(F)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARAL MOTORS & GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED VS. - ACIT (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED VEHICLE S AND THE COST OF WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAM TAM PEDDA GURUVA REDDY VS.- JCIT (ASSESSMENTS) & A NOTHER (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED AUT HORITIES THAT THIS CASE IS COVERED BY RULE 6DD(J) 4 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS MENTIONED IN RULE 6DD(J) ARE APPLICABLE THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 6. IN HIS REJOINDER SHRI DIPAK R. THAKKAR LD. CO UNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD TRANSFORMERS T O B.E.S.T. A BUS SERVICES OF MUMBAI AND UNDERTAKING OF BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA MUMB AI. THE ASSESSEES PAYMENT WAS DUE IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2002. HE SUBMITTED THAT B.E.S.T. IS THE BUS SERVICES IN THE CITY OF MUMBAI THERE MAIN SOURCES OF INCOME ARE SALE OF BUS TICKET S. THEY ARE HAVING RECEIPT OF CASH FROM THEIR PASSENGERS. THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THEM WAS OF SMA LL DENOMINATION OF NOTES SUCH AS RS.20/- RS.10/- RS.5/- RS.2/- AND COINS. AS INFORMED BY OF FICIALS OF B.E.S.T. TO DEPOSIT SUCH CASH OF SMALL DENOMINATION IN TO BANK IS A REGULAR PROBLEM. THEREFORE B.E.S.T. ALWAYS TRY TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT IN CASH TO THEIR SUPPLIERS OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO. IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2002 B.E.S.T. MADE THE PAYMENT IN CASH OF RS.23 55 855.5 1. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TO CARRY THESE HUGE CASH IN FORM OF SMALL DENOMINATIONS FROM MUMBAI TO AHMEDABAD IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THEIR MUMBAI BASED SUPPLIERS NAMELY (I) APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. AND (II) NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES TO ACCEPT THE SAID CASH IN MUMBAI ITSELF. CONSIDERING THE RELATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WITH BOTH THESE PARTIES THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THESE PAYMENTS IN CASH. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT TO MAKE THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENT THE ASSESSEES TWO STAFF MEMBERS NAMELY (I) MR. DIPANK AR GUPTA AND (II) MR. RASIK SUTHAR WENT TO MUMBAI AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED CASH AND MADE A PAYME NT TO BOTH THE AFORESAID TWO SUPPLIERS. FOR THIS PURPOSE THEY HAVE HIRED A TAXI FOR DELIVE RY OF SAID CASH. IN SUPPORT OF THIS THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING THREE PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED :- (I) M/S. B.E.S.T. (II) M/S. NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES (III) M/S. APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. 8. THE RECEIPTS FROM THE FOLLOWING WERE ALSO SUBMIT TED :- 5 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 (I) M/S. B.E.S.T. (II) M/S. NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES (III) M/S. APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. 9. IN SUPPORT OF THIS VOUCHERS OF TRAVELLING EXPEN SES INCURRED BY MR. DIPANKAR GUPTA WAS SUBMITTED AND CONFIRMATIONS DATED 28.03.2006 IN FAV OUR FROM M/S. NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES AND M/S. APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE MADE BEST EF FORTS TO PURCHASE ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF THEIR SUPPLIERS. BUT IN CITY OF MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT AND NO BANK WAS READY TO ACCEPT THESE PAYME NTS IN FORM OF SMALL DENOMINATIONS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO MAK E THE PAYMENT IN CASH TO THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING TO THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE I.E. THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE B.E.S.T. WHICH IS LIKE A PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT THE PAYMENT WAS IN FORM OF SMALL COINS AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO CARRY THE SA ME AT AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT IN MUMBAI. NO BANK IS WILLING TO A CCEPT THE SMALL DENOMINATIONS TO ISSUE BANK DRAFT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS.10 00 000/- TO M/S. NATIONAL LAMINATION INDUSTRIES AND RS.13 00 000/- TO M/S. APAR INDUSTRI ES LTD. AGGREGATING TO RS.23 00 000/-. THEREFORE IT MAY BE HELD THAT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYEE WH O HAD GIVEN THE CASH TO THE ASSESSEE AND PAYEE TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN CASH IS ESTABLISHED. 10. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE US WERE ALSO R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. IN LETTER DATED 29.03.2006. ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE ALSO FURNISHED. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS DUL Y CONSIDERED ALL THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NEITHER BE FORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE COULD POINT OUT ANY CLAUSE OF RULE 6DD UNDER WHICH THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS COVERED. THIS BEING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THIS RULE THAT ON ANY OTHER CAUSE MAY BE APPARENTLY REASONABLE. THE APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT COULD BE RELAXED. IN OTHER WORDS RULE 6DD IS C OMPREHENSIVE IN ITSELF IT DOES NOT PROVIDE INCLUSIVE EXCEPTION SO AS TO LEAVE A SCOPE FOR CONS IDERING OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IF PAYMENT IS MADE IN CASH WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX 6 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 ACT. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CASH PAYMENT PROVIDED EARLIER IN RULE 6DD(J) OF INCOME TAX RULES HAS BEEN DELETED AND THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY IS NOT COVERED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF RULE 6DD. PRIOR TO OMI SSION OF CLAUSE (J) FROM RULE 6DD BY I.T. (XIV) AMENDMENT RULES 1995 WITH EFFECT FROM 25.07. 1995 THREE NEW SITUATIONS HAVE BEEN INSERTED AND CLAUSES (J) (K) & (L) THEREBY SPECIFY ING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PAYMENT IN CASH WOULD BE TREATED AS REASONABLE. EARLIER TO THI S CLAUSE (J) PROVIDED A GENERAL PROPOSITION WHERE IF ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT EXCEPT IONAL OR UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED FOR MAKING PAYMENT IN CASH OR IF IT IS ALSO SATISFIED T HAT PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WAS NOT PRACTICABLE OR COULD HAVE CAUSED GENUINE DIFFICULTY TO THE PAYEE HAVE BEEN REGARDED TO THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND THE NECESSITY FOR EXPEDITIOUS SE TTLEMENT THEN PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT COULD NOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. IT SHOWS THAT LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO COVER EXCEPTIONS ONLY IN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES NOT IN G ENERAL CIRCUMSTANCE AS EARLIER CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (J) OF RULE 6DD. THUS WITH THIS OMISSION ALS O OUR VIEWS FORTIFIED THAT UNLESS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY FALL IN ANY OF THE SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS AS GIVEN IN RULE 6DD APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) CANNOT BE AVOI DED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT HIS CASE FALLS IN ANY OF THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANC ES IN RULE 6DD. WE THEREFORE INCLINE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 12. WE NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. ITA NO. 1348/AHD/2007 . GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO GIVE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB WITHOUT NETTING OF DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80HHC. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE SIDES CONCEDED THAT AS PER LATEST DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. - HINDUSTHAN MINT & AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED [119 ITD 107 (SB)(DEL.)] DEDUCTION TO BE A LLOWED UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER- VIA WITH HEADING C (80H 80HHC ETC.) IS TO BE RE DUCED BY AN AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80IA/ 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1. IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS HELD THAT A.O. RIGHTLY GRANTED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AF TER REDUCING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 7 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 80HHC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE VIEW OF LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS THEREFORE REVERSED AND THAT OF A.O. IS RESTORED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 14. GROUND NO. 2 OF THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY INTEREST U/S. 234B & 234C AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR MAT PAYMENT. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. CALCULATED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C BEFORE ALLOWING MAT CREDIT. O N APPEAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DIRECTE D THE A.O. TO CALCULATE INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS AFTER ALLOWING MAT CREDIT. THE HON'B LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- JINDAL EXPORTS LIMITED [2009] 314 ITR 137 (DEL.) HE LD THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234B & 234C IS TO BE CHARGED AFTER TAX CREDIT (MAT CREDIT) AVAI LABLE UNDER SECTION 115JJA AS SET OFF AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE ON TOTAL INCOME OF YEAR IN QUESTION . THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALSO HELD THAT EVEN PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO EXPLANATION AFTER SECTION 234 B(1) AND TO EXPLANATION AFTER SECTION 234B(1) AND TO EXPLANATION AFTER SECTION 234C(1) BY VIRTUE OF FINANCE ACT 2006 W.E.F. 1.4.2007 THE EXPRESSION SUCH TAX AS APPEARING IN SECTION 140A WOULD HAVE REFERENCE TO TAX PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF RETURN MINUS INTER ALIA MAT CREDIT CLAIM ED SET OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 155JAA AND THUS SAID AMENDMENTS WERE MEREL Y CLARIFICATORY AND MADE EXPLICIT WHAT WAS ALREADY IMPLICIT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION IS IN CON FIRMATORY WITH THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JINDAL EXPORTS LIMITED (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJE CTED. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18.02.2010 SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18 / 02 / 2010 8 I TA NOS. 950 & 1348/AHD/2007 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED; (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.