2005 (12) TMI 71 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80HHC proof of exports - onus to prove that an export had indeed taken place during the year under consideration lay upon the appellant assessee - held that mere purchase/sale invoice coupled with foreign remittance was not enough to prove actual export - deduction under section 80HHC was allowable only if actual export of merchandise was proved. That requirement having failed in the present case there was no escape from the conclusion that the deduction could not be granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for deduction eligibility based on export activities.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the appellant-assessee claimed a deduction under section 80HHC for the assessment year 1998-99. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that the assessee had not made any exports in the relevant years and that the import entitlement sold related to exports from a previous year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) affirmed this decision. The Tribunal gave a split decision, with one member supporting the assessee's export business claim and the other member denying the deduction due to lack of evidence of actual exports. The Third Member agreed with the member denying the deduction, emphasizing the necessity of actual export for claiming the deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal, by majority, upheld the disallowance of the deduction, leading to the current appeal challenging this decision.

The appellant's counsel argued against the reframing of the question by the Third Member and contended that the finding of no actual export was incorrect. The court rejected both arguments, stating that the question reframing was justified to focus on the deduction eligibility issue. The court emphasized that the burden of proving actual exports lay with the appellant, and the authorities below had correctly found the evidence presented insufficient to establish exports. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable, considering the lack of evidence of transportation and customs clearance, disbelieving the claim of exports through a passenger without supporting details. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that mere invoices and remittance were insufficient to prove actual exports, concluding that the appellant failed to meet the requirement for claiming the deduction under section 80HHC.

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose, and upheld the Tribunal's decision to disallow the deduction under section 80HHC due to the lack of evidence of actual exports.