2014 (2) TMI 226 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay Deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act Held that - The decision in M/s. AV. Thomas Leather & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as AV. Thomas Leather & Allied Products Ltd.) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2014 (1) TMI 1265 - ITAT CHENNAI followed - The assessee was not guilty of negligence or such attributes in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal in time - In fact, the assessee-company has earnestly made a follow-up of its claim of deduction under section 8OHHC in respect of the DEPB - This is clear from the fact that the assessee has claimed deduction Thus, it would be just and proper to condone the delay caused in filing the appeals Delay condoned. The quantum of deduction available to the assessee under section 8OHHC in the light of DEPB is to be recomputed by the assessing authority as decided Topman Exports vs. CIT 2012 (2) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - The assessee is entitled for the benefit to the extent explained by the Hon ble Supreme Court the matter is remitted back to the AO for re-computation quantum of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act Decided in favour ofAssessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals for AYs 2002-03 and 2003-04.
2. Merits of the case regarding recomputation of deduction u/s. 80HHC.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeals for AYs 2002-03 and 2003-04 were filed after a significant delay of 1024 and 1012 days, respectively. The assessee sought condonation of delay citing mistaken interpretation of law by their Chartered Accountant. The delay was attributed to the incorrect advice given by the Chartered Accountant regarding the deduction u/s. 80HHC on the profit from the sale of DEPB License. The Director of the assessee company acknowledged the mistake and emphasized the irreparable loss the company would suffer if the delay was not condoned. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay, including the advice received and subsequent realization of the mistake, and decided to condone the delay based on the principles established in similar cases. The Tribunal found no negligence on the part of the assessee and admitted the appeals for hearing.

Merits - Recomputation of Deduction u/s. 80HHC:
The Tribunal, after condoning the delay, examined the merits of the case related to the recomputation of deduction u/s. 80HHC in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT, 342 ITR 49. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in a similar case and observed that the issue was identical. Following the precedent, the Tribunal remitted both files to the Assessing Officer for the recomputation of the deduction u/s. 80HHC in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court's judgment. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reevaluate the quantum of deduction available to the assessee under section 80HHC based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata, after condoning the delay in filing the appeals for AYs 2002-03 and 2003-04, allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction u/s. 80HHC in accordance with the law and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision was based on the absence of negligence by the assessee and the applicability of established legal principles in similar cases.