9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of deduction under section 80HHC for rough diamonds. Analysis: The revenue appealed against the allowance of deduction under section 80HHC for rough diamonds by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that exporting rough diamonds without value addition would defeat the purpose of the deduction. The revenue argued that rough diamonds are not covered under processed minerals and ores in the Twelfth Schedule, making them ineligible for the deduction. The assessee contended that rough diamonds should be considered processed minerals as they were washed. However, the Tribunal found that rough diamonds are minerals and not processed as per the Twelfth Schedule, thus denying the deduction. The Tribunal emphasized that each year is an independent assessment unit, and past decisions do not bind the current judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was set aside, and the Assessing Officer's decision was upheld. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular clarified that polished diamonds are not minerals and ores due to the manufacturing process. However, the Circular implied that rough diamonds, not processed through manufacturing, could be considered minerals. The Tribunal referred to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of minerals to establish that rough diamonds fall under the category of minerals. While the assessee argued that washing rough diamonds constituted processing, the Tribunal found that the Twelfth Schedule specifically mentioned cut and polished minerals and ores, excluding rough diamonds. The Tribunal highlighted that the Explanation to the Twelfth Schedule clarified the meaning of "processed" but did not extend to all processed minerals for the deduction under section 80HHC. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that rough diamonds did not qualify for the deduction. The Tribunal raised concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the fate of rough diamonds unsuitable for cutting and polishing. If these diamonds were sold in the open market outside India, they would be considered exports. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of verification on this aspect. Despite this ambiguity, the Tribunal decided against remanding the case for further verification due to the disallowance of the deduction on other grounds. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear facts for a fair conclusion.
|
