9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC. 2. Levying of interest under Sections 234A and 234B. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80HHC: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction under Section 80HHC. The primary arguments were: - The assessee carried on business individually until 30th September 1991 under the name "Black Jaguar". From 1st October 1991, her son joined as a partner, and the business name remained unchanged. - The CIT(A) did not appreciate that the business was conducted in the same name before and after the partnership formation. - The CIT(A) failed to consider that the disallowance of the claim under Section 80HHC for transactions where foreign exchange was not realized was unjustified. - The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant did not fulfill the requirements under Section 80HHC. The assessee also raised an additional ground, arguing that the AO erred in levying interest under Section 234B on the income determined by the AO without passing any specific order. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which allows the Tribunal to examine questions of law arising from facts found by the IT authorities. The main grievance pertained to the deduction under Section 80HHC. The facts established that the assessee was a proprietor of "Black Jaguar" until 30th September 1991, after which the business was transferred to a partnership firm. The assessee filed a return on 30th October 1992, declaring Nil income and claimed exemption under Section 10B, which was later revised to claim under Section 80HHC. The AO rejected the revised return, stating it could not correct the wrong statement in the original return and disallowed the deduction under Section 80HHC. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee did not fulfill the requirements under Section 80HHC, as no application for extension of time for foreign exchange realization was made by the assessee but by the partnership firm. Upon appeal, the Tribunal found that the export was carried out by the assessee in her individual capacity before the formation of the partnership. The Tribunal noted that the extension of time for foreign exchange realization was sought by the assessee individually, and the goods were exported before the partnership was formed. The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) were incorrect in disallowing the deduction under Section 80HHC and directed the AO to allow the claim. 2. Levying of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B: The assessee argued that the AO did not pass a specific order for charging interest under Sections 234A and 234B in the assessment order or demand notice. The Tribunal reviewed the assessment order and demand notice and found no mention of charging interest under these sections. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in CIT & Ors. vs. Ranchi Club Ltd., which held that interest under Sections 234A and 234B could not be recovered without specific mention in the assessment order. Similar judgments from other courts supported this view. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in charging interest under Sections 234A and 234B without specific directions in the assessment order and deleted the interest charged by the AO. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80HHC and deleted the interest charged under Sections 234A and 234B.
|
