2015 (8) TMI 507 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction under section 80HHC denied - AO disallowed the said claim on the ground that the STC had declared loss, they had not earned any profit out of such exports. Secondly, on the ground that the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act is permissible only when the realisation is in foreign exchange - ITAT allowed claim - Held that - To attract the said provision, the supporting manufacturer who sells the goods or merchandise to the export house or trading house, the export house and trading house has to issue a certificate under the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 80HHC of the Act. If these two conditions are fulfilled, then the supporting manufacturer is entitled to the deduction as contemplated under section 80HHC of the Act to an extent as mentioned in section 80HHC(1B) of the Act. It is immaterial whether in the process, export house or trading house sells the goods to any foreign country or earns profit or realises any foreign exchange. In order to attract section 80HHC(1A) of the Act after purchase of goods or merchandise from the supporting manufacturer, the said goods has to be exported out of India. Once such export is established, a certificate under the proviso to sub-section (1) is issued by the export house or trading house and when they are not claiming the benefit under section 80HHC, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of deduction as prescribed under section 80HHC(1A) of the Act. Even the circulars relied on do support the case of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Whether Tribunal was right in concluding that the assessee has apparently complied with the statutory requirements provided in section 80HHC(1A) for claiming the deduction, even though the requisite certificate duly signed by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has not been filed along with the R/I? - Held that - This court had an occasion to consider this question in the case of ITO v. Mandira D. Vakharia 2000 (11) TMI 48 - KARNATAKA High Court where it has been held that even though the requisite certificate duly signed by an accountant as defined in sub-section (2) of section 88 of the Act is not produced along with the return, if it is produced even in the course of proceedings, it has to be taken note of and given the benefit. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in granting the relief to the assessee relying upon the certificate produced in the course of the proceedings. - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04.
2. Interpretation of section 80HHC(1A) of the Act regarding entitlement to deduction for supporting manufacturers.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements under section 80HHC(1A) for claiming deductions.

Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC:
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming a deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the grounds that the supporting manufacturer had not earned any profit from the exports and that realisation should be in foreign exchange to qualify for the deduction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal held that if the supporting manufacturer fulfills the conditions prescribed in the law and circulars, they are entitled to the deduction under section 80HHC(1A) of the Act, even if the export house does not claim the benefit and the consideration is received in Indian currency. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific provision in section 80HHC(1A) of the Act, which allows the supporting manufacturer to claim the benefit. The Revenue appealed against this decision, arguing that the benefit should not be granted if the export house did not earn a profit and no foreign exchange was realized.

Issue 2: Interpretation of section 80HHC(1A) for supporting manufacturers:
Section 80HHC(1A) of the Act provides for a deduction for supporting manufacturers who sell goods to Export Houses or Trading Houses and fulfill certain conditions. The provision states that if the Export House issues a certificate under the proviso to sub-section (1), the supporting manufacturer is entitled to a deduction based on the profits derived from the sale. The Tribunal emphasized that the key factor is whether the Export House and supporting manufacturer both claim the benefit. The circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding protocol exports supported the Tribunal's interpretation. The Court affirmed that for section 80HHC(1A) to apply, the goods purchased from the supporting manufacturer must be exported out of India, and the Export House or Trading House should not claim the benefit under section 80HHC. The Court concluded that the assessee met the conditions under section 80HHC(1A) and was entitled to the deduction.

Issue 3: Compliance with statutory requirements for claiming deductions:
The Court addressed whether the assessee complied with the statutory requirements under section 80HHC(1A) for claiming deductions, specifically regarding the submission of a certificate signed by an accountant as defined in the Act. Referring to a previous case, the Court established that even if the certificate is not filed along with the return but is produced during the proceedings, it should be considered valid. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in granting relief to the assessee based on the certificate submitted during the proceedings. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's argument against this compliance and ruled in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04. The Court interpreted and applied section 80HHC(1A) to determine the entitlement of supporting manufacturers to deductions, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements. The judgment clarified the conditions under which supporting manufacturers can claim deductions under the Act and affirmed the importance of fulfilling the prescribed criteria for availing such benefits.