2012 (11) TMI 629 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80HHC Export of cut and trimmed granite blocks - held that - Assessee s contention that the word rough was wrongly typed in the invoice is totally unbelievable and cannot be accepted as it appears to be an after thought. When that being the position, the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal had rightly rejected the case of the assessee by holding that the assessee was not entitled to relief under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act as per CBDT s circular No.729 dated 01.11.1995, as admittedly, rough blocks were exported and not dimensional blocks insofar as the remaining claim of the assessee in respect of the total sales export of Rs.2,09,48,250/-. The assessee had already given deduction in respect of Rs.19,52,965/- in respect of dimensional blocks of granite export is concerned , there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal - Tax Case (Appeal) is dismissed answering the questions in favour of the Revenue. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim of deduction under Section 80 HHC for dimensional granite blocks exported.
2. Discrepancy between the description of exported granite blocks and the claim made by the assessee.
3. Interpretation of export documents and determination of the type of granite blocks exported.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessee claimed export benefit under Section 80 HHC for dimensional granite blocks but faced rejection by the Assessing Officer due to a discrepancy in the export sales. The Assessing Officer granted deduction only for sales of dimensional granite blocks, not for rough granite blocks, as per CBDT's circular. The First Appellate Authority supported the assessee's claim, emphasizing that the cutting and trimming were done by suppliers, making the assessee eligible for deduction. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the export documents clearly indicated the export of rough granite blocks, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2:
The dispute revolved around the description of the exported granite blocks. The Tribunal analyzed the export invoice and emphasized that the correct description of goods is crucial for customs clearance. Despite the assessee's argument that the term 'rough' was a typographical error, the Tribunal maintained that the goods' nature could be identified by color, rejecting the contention that only dimensional blocks were exported.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the export documents and the nature of the exported granite blocks. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's claim lacked credibility as the purchase invoices clearly indicated the export of rough blocks. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing that the assessee failed to provide evidence of exporting dimensional blocks and had not incurred expenses for value addition, concluding that the assessee was not entitled to relief under Section 80 HHC for the disputed sales.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal in favor of the Revenue. The Court emphasized the importance of accurate documentation and the nature of goods exported in determining eligibility for tax benefits under Section 80 HHC.