9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 247 - HC - Income TaxEligibility for deduction u/s 80-HHC - Income surrendered on account of increased valuation of closing stock during the course of a survey under Section 133-A conducted at the business place of assessee - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that - Deduction under section 80HHC is available only on showing fulfillment of the conditions specified therein & as categorically held by the two appellate authorities below that there is no case made out against the respondent assessee that there was any violation of conditions prescribed under Section 80HHC of the Act. The said findings of facts are indisputably binding on this Court under Section 260A while dealing with substantial question of law already framed. ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction under Section 80HHC on the excess stock valuation found during the course of survey and surrendered as business income of the assessee during the assessment year and the same being treated as profits of business for the relevant assessment year, were eligible for the deduction under Section 80HHC to the extent prescribed under sub-section (1B) of Section 80HHC - in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80HHC on excess stock surrendered as business income. 2. Requirement of evidence for receipt of money in convertible foreign exchange. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80HHC on Excess Stock Surrendered as Business Income: The appellant-Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which allowed the assessee to claim a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the income surrendered due to increased valuation of closing stock during a survey under Section 133-A. The Revenue argued that the assessee should not be entitled to this deduction as the excess stock was surrendered as business income without proof of realization in convertible foreign exchange. The ITAT, along with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), held that the income from the increased valuation of closing stock should be included in the "profits of business" as per Section 28 read with Section 80HHC(4)(C)(baa) of the Act. They noted that the assessee satisfied all conditions for the deduction under Section 80HHC, as the business involved the export of handicraft items, and there was no contrary evidence suggesting otherwise. The CIT(A) and ITAT's findings were binding and in favor of the assessee, affirming the deduction. 2. Requirement of Evidence for Receipt of Money in Convertible Foreign Exchange: The Revenue's counsel cited the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in National Legguard Works, arguing that the assessee failed to prove the realization of convertible foreign exchange for the excess stock, thus disqualifying them from the deduction under Section 80HHC. However, the assessee's counsel contended that the excess stock valuation surrendered during the survey should be included in the profits of business, and since there was no dispute about the export sales and realization of foreign exchange, the deduction should not be denied. The court noted that the Assessing Authority disallowed the deduction without detailed reasons, whereas the CIT(A) and ITAT found that the assessee's business was solely handicraft items, and there was no evidence of other business activities. Thus, the deduction under Section 80HHC was justified. The court distinguished the present case from National Legguard Works, where the findings were against the assessee, and the burden of proof was not discharged. In contrast, the present case had findings in favor of the assessee, with no evidence of non-compliance with Section 80HHC conditions. Conclusion: The court concluded that the ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction under Section 80HHC on the excess stock valuation surrendered as business income. The income from the increased valuation of closing stock was part of the "profits of business" and eligible for the deduction. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.
|
