2012 (6) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

Premium received on sale of export quota - Taxability u/s Section 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) - Exemption u/s 80HHC - whether the premium received on sale of export quota is covered by Section 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) and accordingly, has to be included while computing the deduction as per the provisos to sub-Section (3) of Section 80HHC of the Act. - held that - premium on sale of export quota is not covered by clauses 28(iiia) to (iiie) and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. - The question of law mentioned above, therefore, is answered in negative i.e. in favour of the appellant-Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. Revision u/s 263 - held that - The tribunal was wrong in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was bad and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The question of law is answered in negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the premium received on the sale of export quota falls under Section 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the premium received on the sale of export quota should be included while computing the deduction as per the provisos to sub-Section (3) of Section 80HHC.
3. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 23rd February 1998 is binding on the Revenue.
4. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax had the jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Premium on Sale of Export Quota under Section 28(iiia) to 28(iiic):
The primary issue was whether the premium received on the sale of export quota should be included under Section 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) of the Income Tax Act. The court noted that "the profit or proceeds received from the sale of quota permits is not income derived from export." The court concluded that the sale of export quota does not fall under Section 28(iiia) as it pertains to the sale of a license under the Import (Control) Order, 1955. Similarly, it does not fall under Section 28(iiib) and (iiic) as it is not cash assistance or duty drawback. The premium also does not fall under Section 28(iiid) or (iiie) as these clauses were introduced with retrospective effect and pertain to different schemes like the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme and Duty Free Replenishment Certificate, which are not related to export quotas.

2. Inclusion of Premium in Deduction Computation under Section 80HHC(3):
The court examined whether the premium on the sale of export quota should be included while computing the deduction under the provisos to Section 80HHC(3). The tribunal had held that the premium should be included as per the Office Memorandum dated 23rd February 1998. However, the court disagreed, stating that "the circular has not clarified that the receipt of premium/profit on the sale of export quota would be given the same treatment only under Explanation (baa) but not under provisos to Section 80HHC(3)." Therefore, the court concluded that the premium is not covered by Section 28(iiia) to (iiie) and cannot be included in the deduction computation under Section 80HHC(3).

3. Binding Nature of the Office Memorandum:
The court addressed whether the Office Memorandum dated 23rd February 1998 is binding on the Revenue. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, which stated that circulars contrary to statutory provisions have no existence in law. The court concluded that while the Office Memorandum could be considered a circular, it cannot override the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the Revenue is not bound by the Office Memorandum if it contradicts the Act.

4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263:
The court examined whether the Commissioner of Income Tax had the jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal had held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's view was plausible. However, the court noted that "the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." The court emphasized that the Commissioner has the power to revise an order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the court upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction to invoke Section 263.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the premium received on the sale of export quota is not covered by Section 28(iiia) to 28(iiie) and cannot be included in the deduction computation under Section 80HHC(3). The Office Memorandum dated 23rd February 1998 is not binding on the Revenue if it contradicts the statutory provisions. The Commissioner of Income Tax had the jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The appeals were allowed in favor of the Revenue.

← Previous Next →