2005 (9) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Whether or not deduction u/s 80-O is admissible with reference to the gross foreign exchange brought into India or the profit included in the gross total income is a debatable question of law on which contrary opinions are conceivable. Adjustment of the returned income on account of the claim of deduction under section 80-O is, therefore, outside the scope of section 143(1)(a). The returned income is therefore directed to be accepted without the impugned adjustment relating to the claim of deduction under section 80-O of the Act. - petitioner also relied upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Asian Cables Corporation Ltd. as also the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Isthmian India Maritime Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 80-O should be calculated on the gross fees receipt and not on net income. These decisions are of the Bombay and Madras High Courts. They are decisions which would be binding within the jurisdictions of these High Courts. In so far as the Assessing Officer in Delhi was concerned, he was bound by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Marketing Research Corporation and as such, there was no scope for any debate. Therefore, the adjustments could be made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a). Accordingly, we feel that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration and the appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the deduction under section 80-O is allowable on the gross amount of fees received in foreign exchange.
2. Whether the Tribunal failed to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.
3. Whether the Assessing Officer can make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) without inquiry or notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under Section 80-O on Gross vs. Net Income:
The primary issue was whether the deduction under section 80-O should be computed on the gross professional fees received in foreign exchange or on the net income. The assessee claimed the deduction on the gross amount, while the Assessing Officer allowed it on the net income. This adjustment was contested by the assessee, but the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, citing the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Marketing Research Corporation [1987] 61 CTR 204, which mandated that deductions under section 80-O be computed on net income. This position was further reinforced by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Chemical and Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 749, which clarified that section 80AB applied to section 80-O, necessitating deductions on net income.

2. Tribunal's Adherence to Supreme Court Precedent:
The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to follow the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 48. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found that the legal position regarding the computation of deductions under section 80-O was well-settled in Delhi by the decision in CIT v. Marketing Research Corporation [1987] 61 CTR 204, which was binding on the Assessing Officer. The Full Bench decision in CIT v. Chemical and Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd. further solidified this stance, indicating that the Tribunal's decision was consistent with prevailing legal interpretations.

3. Adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without Inquiry or Notice:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer could not make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) without inquiry or notice, especially when the issue was debatable. The High Court examined whether the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was prima facie inadmissible. The court referenced the decision in Samtel Color Ltd. v. Union of India [2002] 258 ITR 1 (Delhi), which stated that adjustments under section 143(1)(a) should only be made if the claim is inadmissible on the face of it without any debate. However, the High Court concluded that in 1995 and 1997, when the return was filed and processed, the legal position in Delhi was clear and settled by the decision in CIT v. Marketing Research Corporation. Thus, the adjustment by the Assessing Officer was justified as it was not a debatable issue at that time.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the deduction under section 80-O should be computed on net income, consistent with the established legal position in Delhi. The court found no substantial question of law warranting further consideration, upholding the Tribunal's decision and the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a).