2014 (7) TMI 1107 - AT - Income Tax

Benefit of section 80HHC - Two divergent views - Held that - The hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Vegetables Products Ltd. 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court has held that where two views are available the view in favour of the assessee has to be taken. We accordingly following the view taken by the hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports v. CIT 2012 (7) TMI 190 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . - As regards computation of the quantum of deduction available to the assessee under section 80HHC we deem it necessary to remit the files back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall recompute deduction in the light of decision rendered in the case of Avani Exports v. CIT 2012 (7) TMI 190 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Issues:
- Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner's decision on section 80HHC deduction
- Condonation of delay in filing appeals
- Disallowance of deduction by Assessing Officer under section 154
- Interpretation of retrospective amendments to section 80HHC
- Applicability of judgments by Gujarat High Court and Allahabad High Court
- Principle of taking view in favor of assessee when two views available
- Remitting files back to Assessing Officer for computation of deduction

Analysis:
1. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner's decision on section 80HHC deduction:
The Revenue filed appeals challenging the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision granting section 80HHC benefits to the assessees without considering retrospective amendments to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were admitted for hearing on merits.

2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals:
Despite a delay of fifty-three days in filing the appeals, the Departmental representative requested condonation, which was granted. The appeals were then admitted for hearing.

3. Disallowance of deduction by Assessing Officer under section 154:
The Assessing Officer rectified the assessment orders by disallowing the section 80HHC deduction claimed by the assessees due to their export turnover exceeding a specified amount. This action led to the assessees filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

4. Interpretation of retrospective amendments to section 80HHC:
The Revenue contended that the assessees were not eligible for the section 80HHC deduction due to retrospective amendments introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Departmental representative relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment to support this argument.

5. Applicability of judgments by Gujarat High Court and Allahabad High Court:
The Tribunal considered conflicting judgments by the Gujarat High Court and the Allahabad High Court regarding the retrospective applicability of the amendments. The Tribunal favored the view of the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing that retrospective amendments should not be detrimental to any assessee.

6. Principle of taking view in favor of assessee when two views available:
Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Vegetables Products Ltd., the Tribunal held that when two views are available, the view in favor of the assessee should be adopted. Consequently, the Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's view on the retrospective amendment issue.

7. Remitting files back to Assessing Officer for computation of deduction:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction available to the assessee under section 80HHC in line with the decision of the Gujarat High Court. The appeals by the Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case focused on the interpretation of retrospective amendments to section 80HHC, considering conflicting judgments and principles favoring the assessee's position when two views are available. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for the computation of deductions based on the Gujarat High Court's decision.

← Previous Next →