2013 (6) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Whether findings of fact binding on to the High Court - Deduction u/s 80HHC - export of marble blocks - no value addition in terms of cost of exported blocks as required in Circular No. 693, dated November 17, 1994 - held that - the finding of the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is in favour of assessee-respondents and it has been categorically held that the assessee-respondents are eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act for export of marble blocks, which were cut and polished. This findings are, indisputably, binding on, this court in view of the law laid down by the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT 2008 (4) TMI 5 - Supreme Court . The appellant-Revenue has also not controverted that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on facts are not correct or are perverse. Therefore, the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal need not be gone into by us. - ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act regarding the export of cut and polished marble blocks during the relevant years by the assessee-respondents. - Decided against the revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for export of marble blocks.
2. Interpretation and applicability of Circular No. 693, dated November 17, 1994.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80HHC:

The primary issue was whether the assessees were eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for exporting marble blocks that were cut and polished. The Revenue contended that the exported marble blocks were not polished as required by the Twelfth Schedule and Circular No. 693, and thus, there was no value addition in terms of cost. Consequently, they argued that the assessees were not entitled to the deduction.

The assessees, on the other hand, claimed that the marble blocks were indeed cut and polished, thereby fulfilling the conditions for the deduction. They supported their claim with invoices, vouchers, and certificates. They also relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. God Granites, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, stating that any process that adds value to the marketable commodity qualifies for the deduction.

The judgment emphasized that the Act does not specify the degree or extent of cutting and polishing required. It was noted that any process that adds value to the marketable commodity would create eligibility for the deduction. The court referred to the Karnataka High Court's interpretation, which stated that the final shape, size, and polishing could be determined by the end user, and the Act does not mandate final cutting and polishing before export.

The appellate authorities, including the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, had concurrently held in favor of the assessees, stating that the conditions for the deduction under section 80HHC were met. The court upheld these findings, noting that the assessees had provided sufficient evidence of cutting and polishing, and thus, the marble blocks were eligible for the deduction.

2. Interpretation and Applicability of Circular No. 693:

The second issue involved the interpretation and legal effect of Circular No. 693, dated November 17, 1994. The circular clarified that for availing the benefit under section 80HHC, the rock must be both cut and polished before export. The Revenue argued that the assessees did not meet this requirement.

However, the court found that the circular did not adversely affect the assessees' claims. It reiterated that the Act does not prescribe the degree of cutting and polishing, and any process that adds value qualifies for the deduction. The court noted that the marble blocks, after undergoing cutting and polishing, fetched higher profits, indicating high value addition.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT, which stated that the High Court could only question the Tribunal's findings if they were perverse. Since the Tribunal's findings were in favor of the assessees and not challenged as perverse by the Revenue, the High Court upheld these findings.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction under section 80HHC for the export of cut and polished marble blocks. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessees and against the Revenue. The court also held that Circular No. 693 did not adversely affect the assessees' claims for the deduction.

← Previous Next →