2014 (10) TMI 317 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80HHC - Business of mining and export of marble blocks - Reduction of 90% of export incentive Held that - CIT(A) has correctly allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80 HHC following the decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax and others Versus M/s. Aravali Minerals & Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others 2013 (6) TMI 190 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act regarding export of cut and polished marble blocks during relevant years by the assessee - since the Circular No.693 dated 17th November 1994 does not adversely affect claims of the assessee and the assessees are entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 80HHC. Addition on account of fall in GP Held that - The G.P. rate in this year has been on lower side - the decrease in G.P. rate stands explained by the undeniable reasons that there is heavy increase in purchase price freight cost and export cost. The books of accounts were lost and assessee has filed an FIR - The assessee has produced particulars of blocks-purchased and purchase bills were made available vide letter dated 05.12.2005 - The AO has not invoked section 145(3) in its terms - Therefore fall in G.P. rate cannot be made a reason for involving section 145(3) Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening assessments under sections 147 and 148.
2. Trading addition based on gross profit rate.
3. Deduction under section 80HHC for export of cut and polished marble blocks.
4. Reduction of 90% of export incentive while calculating deduction under section 80HHC.
5. Disallowance of depreciation on export-oriented units.
6. Depreciation on vehicles.
7. Deduction under section 80HHC on income derived from sale of REP licenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reopening Assessments under Sections 147 and 148:
The assessee objected to the notices issued under section 148 for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03, arguing that they were issued after the lapse of four years and were thus illegal and invalid. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) contended that the four-year limit applies only when assessments are completed under section 143(3) and not when processed under section 143(1). The Tribunal found that the order passed by the CIT(A) was non-est as it was passed after the death of the assessee. Consequently, the orders were declared void-ab-initio and set aside for fresh orders after hearing the legal heir.

2. Trading Addition Based on Gross Profit Rate:
For the assessment year 1998-99, the A.O. applied an average gross profit rate of 49.32% from two past years, resulting in a trading addition of Rs. 2,89,433/-. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the decrease in the gross profit rate was explained by increased purchase prices, freight costs, and export costs. The A.O. did not invoke section 145(3), and thus the fall in the gross profit rate could not justify the trading addition.

3. Deduction under Section 80HHC for Export of Cut and Polished Marble Blocks:
The A.O. disallowed the deduction under section 80HHC, arguing that the assessee exported cut and one-side polished marble blocks, which did not qualify as cut and polished minerals and rocks under the Twelfth Schedule of the Act. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, following the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT Vs Aravali Mineral & Chemical Industries (P) Ltd., which supported the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80HHC.

4. Reduction of 90% of Export Incentive while Calculating Deduction under Section 80HHC:
For the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim regarding the reduction of 90% of export incentive. The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Export-Oriented Units:
For the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, the A.O. disallowed depreciation on export-oriented units. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld the decision.

6. Depreciation on Vehicles:
The A.O. disallowed a portion of the depreciation claimed on vehicles for personal use. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the disallowance was adhoc and without specific facts.

7. Deduction under Section 80HHC on Income Derived from Sale of REP Licenses:
For the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, the A.O. disallowed the deduction on the sale of REP licenses, arguing that the profit was not shown in the computation of income or Form No. 10CCAC. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that there was no requirement to show the profit on sale of REP licenses in Form No. 10CCAC and that the A.O. never requested such details.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all the issues. The Tribunal confirmed that the assessee was entitled to deductions under section 80HHC for the export of cut and polished marble blocks and on the sale of REP licenses, and upheld the deletion of trading additions and disallowances of depreciation on vehicles. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on export-oriented units for the relevant assessment years.