9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored." 3. the facts of the case as narrated in the assessment order are that the assessee is a manufacturer of heat exchangers carrying on its business at Pune. The original return of income was filed on 24-12-1991 showing nil income. The revised return was filed on 28-9-1992 again disclosing nil income. In the original return, the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,33,43,104 under section 80HHC. However, in its revised return the claim of this deduction was revised to Rs. 1,28,06,035. From the details collected by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings, he noticed that the assessee had received sale proceeds in rupees and sold the goods exported to an Indian party, namely, M/s Span Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Span). Hence the Assessing Officer conducted enquiries with Span to ascertain as to who was the real exporter. During the enquiry, Span categorically contended that Span was the real exporter and had received the convertible foreign exchange. It further clarified that the order from the Russian party was in its name, the letter of credit was opened in its name, the bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. The said Shri Chothia was also a partner of the Steam Process Aids who were appointed as the sole selling agents by the assessee and were paid a commission of Rs. 10 lakhs in connection with the sale which is the subject-matter of the present dispute. Shri C.S. Gandhi further admitted that the export order was not in the name of the assessee, but was in the name of the Span and that the assessee received the sale proceeds not in convertible foreign exchange, but in rupees from Span. The remittance in rupees was also not received directly from the Russian party, but from the merchant exporter, i. e. Span Overseas Pvt. Ltd. when questioned by the Assessing Officer as to on what basis he claimed to be an exporter eligible to deduction under section 80HHC. Shri Gandhi replied that he was an Engineer and this question should be put only to his Chartered Accountant who accompanied him. Shri C.S. Gandhi further disclosed that the enquiry from the Russian importer was obtained by Shri Manoj Shivnani, the Director of Span who was stationed during the relevant period in Moscow. However, Mr Sathe (General Manager of Hindustan Sealol) passed on the enquiry to the assessee. Then one day Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of packing credit ; (viii) C.C.S. was to be charged by both the parties, i.e., 60% to the assessee and 40% to the Span, REP and duty draw-back, bank certified invoice and disclaimer certificate were to be provided by Span to the assessee ; (ix) Bill of lading showed the assessee's name as manufacturer. Another point of view claimed by the assessee in its letter read as follows : " The intention of Legislature is to give the benefits under section 80HHC to the exports for bringing convertible foreign exchange in India. In case of exports by supporting manufacturers through export house or trading house, the legislative intention is that the benefits of tax exemption should be given to both the parties. However, total exemption granted to both the parties should not exceed total profits earned. In our case, Span is not a export house or trading house and hence, we are not supporting manufacturers. However, the case is synonymous and total profit claimed as exempt by us as well as by Span is the total profit earned on exports. The case is not of double claim but that at splitting of the claims. We are claiming benefit to the extent of total profits minus commission paid to Span ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Export House nor a Trading House, the possibility of passing the export turnover to Rifox was not there. All the terms and other conditions which were of commercial nature were obviously on back to back basis, i. e., the delivery date, liquidated damages, inspection clause, quality, guarantee, etc. An exporter as per the import-export rules and regulations can get the goods manufactured locally and export the same, and, if necessary, can also obtain advance licences to help the manufacturer in producing the goods, if they are within the norms and regulations of the import-export policy of that financial year. As regards the specifications and guarantee, Shri Shivnani has explained in his cross-examination that the order between the buyer and the exporter was between M/s. Exporters of Soviet Union and Span Overseas P. Ltd. Pune. Span had used Rifox as a manufacturer who would supply equipment to Span. Obviously, Span being a merchant trader and exporter, had to reflect on a back to back basis, all the guarantee and terms and conditions because the control on the manufacturing could be only by the manufacturer and as the Span had used Rifox as manufacturer, it had to fulfil the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The agreement with the Russian party was very clearly in the name of Span and the assessee's name did not figure anywhere in it. The said agreement did not make any mention of the agency agreement. (iii) There is no reason to dispute the reasons stated by Shri Shivnani for passing on the order on back to back basis to the assessee. It is a common sense that any purchaser who purchases the goods for ultimate supply to others at a fair price would definitely pass on the quality, delivery and risk conditions on the manufacturer from whom it purchases the goods. (iv) It had been admitted by both Shri Gandhi and Shri Chothia that Steam Process Aids was the agent of Rifox Engg. (I) P. Ltd. and the payment of Rs. 10 lakhs had been made to Steam Process Aids on the basis of the agreement dated 12-6-1990 with effect from 1-11-1989. If this is so, it was not known as to how Span could be the assessee's agent. (v) As per clause (3) of the agreement dated 12-6-1990 the assessee had appointed Steam Process Aids as sole selling agent for obtaining export business from U.S.S.R., other East European countries, Iran and Australia. According to the obligations of the principal, it had been agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee as per the agreement between the two parties regarding supply of goods. (h) The export order, the letter of credit, shipping bill, bill of lading etc. were all in the name of the Span. (i) Span was not a canalising agency. (j) Span had not acted as a commission agent, but had proved itself to be an exporter. (k) The sale of the heat exchanger by the assessee was only a local sale and was made to M/s. Span Overseas P. Ltd. and it was for this reason that the transaction was treated as a domestic sale during the course of export under the provisions of the Income-tax law. Neither the assessee had exported any goods nor had it received the price consideration thereof from any foreign buyer. The price received by the assessee was from a local buyer, namely, Span Overseas P. Ltd. 10. As a result of the above findings and the conclusions drawn therefrom, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim to deduction under section 80HHC and directed initiation of penalty proceedings for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 11. On the matter being taken in the first appeal, the pleas and contentions made before the Assessing Officer were repea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o made to the fact that the price of the goods exported mentioned in the Russian buyer's contract agreement was Rs. 3,96,26,082 and the same price was mentioned in the purchase order placed by the Span with the assessee. According to the assessee, no trader in goods would pay a purchase price equal to the sale price of the goods exported. The fact that for Span both the purchase and sale price was the same and the Span was entitled only to a commission indicates that the Span was merely a commission agent of the assessee and not an exporter in its own right. One contention raised before the learned CIT(A) and accepted by her was that the Form No. 14B under the Sales-tax rules was furnished by penultimate seller to ultimate seller. Since it was so done in the present case, it indicated that the Span was an agent and not a principal or an exporter. So far as the tax law is concerned, reliance was placed before the learned CIT(A) on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the ease of CIT v. R. S. Subbaiah Pillai & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1972] 85 ITR 71 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. R. C. Mishra, Director, Tax Credit [1978] 114 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Russian party by the Span not on its own behalf, but on behalf of the assessee. (xiii) It was true that M/s. Span was not a canalising agency, but it is similarly true that M/s. Span acted only as an agent/intermediary on account of the fact that the order was placed on back to back basis with the assessee. (xiv) The fact that same price was mentioned in the contract agreement with the Russian party as well as in the purchase order placed by the Span with the assessee indicated that the Span was to receive only the commission and was, therefore, a commission agent. (xv) Commission cannot be equated with profit and commission is received only by an agent and not by a person trading on his own account. (xvi) The penalties, if any, leviable under the transaction were to be borne by the assessee. (xvii) The commission and charges paid to Hongkong Bank were deducted by the Span from the amount paid to the assessee and this also indicated that it was the assessee who had borne all the expenses of export and was, therefore, the exporter of the goods. (xviii) The minutes of the meetings held on 1-1-1990 and 5-1-1990 showed that arrangement was that of principal and commission agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt relating to the local purchase of goods. (i) It is an admitted position that the Span was not a canalising agency. (j) The Russian party had nothing to do with Rifox. There was no privity of contract between the Russian buyer and the assessee manufacturer. (k) There existed an agreement dated 12-6-1990 (with effect from 1-11- 1989) between Rifox and Steam Process Aids according to which Steam Process Aids was the sole selling agent of Rifox, for this category of goods for various foreign countries including Russia. This agreement was to be in force for 3 years from 1-11-1989 and Rifox had paid commission to Steam Process Aids on the basis of this agreement. Since Steam Process Aids was the sole selling agent, the question of appointing Span as an agent in respect of the same category of goods and for the same territory was totally ruled out. (l) Shri R.E. Chothia, who was the Chairman of Rifox when the order was received through his good office and who was also a partner in Steam Process Aids has categorically stated that the Span was not an agent of Rifox. (m) The fact that the Span was not the commission agent of the assessee is further made clear by the internal correspo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or reference whatsoever to M/s. Rifox Engg. (I) P. Ltd. in this contract agreement. There was thus no privity of contract between the Russian buyer and the assessee. The learned senior departmental representative made similar reference to the purchase order No. 89/01 dated 25-12-1989 placed by the Span with Rifox Engg. (I) P. Ltd. This document is nomenclatured as purchase order which, according to the learned senior departmental representative, indicates that the transaction was that of local sale and purchase. On the question of use of the word ' commission ', it was submitted by the learned senior departmental representative that the word has to be interpreted in the factual context in which it has been used. In the present case, the word was used in a loose sense and with a view to ensure only the minimum margin of profit of the Span in executing the Russian order. Since the goods manufactured by the assessee were to be exported, it was considered expedient by the parties that the Span should be guaranteed the minimum margin of profit with reference to the contractual price to be paid by the Russian party. It was in that context and with a view to ensure the minimum margin of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l referred to the definition of ' export ' as given in the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Customs Act, 1962 and contended that since the delivery of the FOB and the delivery took place after crossing by the goods of the customs frontiers, it was the assessee who exported the goods. According to the learned counsel, since it was the assessee who had furnished the Bond to the Central Excise authorities in connection with the export of the goods, it was the assessee who should be treated as the exporters. In this connection, he referred to the dictionary meaning of the term ' FOB ' as given in the Black's Law Dictionary and Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mineral& Metal Trading Corpn., the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K.S. Subbaiah Pillai & Co. (P.) Ltd and the decision of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1220/86, a copy whereof is available at pages 100 to 120 of the assessee's paper book. He also discussed the general meaning of the word ' commission ' with reference to the dictionaries of Black and Jowitt and the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in Harihar Cott ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These provisions of the Sales-tax Act and the provisions made therein are directory in nature. Therefore, issue of Form No. 14B in the present case was not significant and could not have any material bearing on the question as to whether or not any domestic/local sale took place in India. He further contended that in view of the fact that the nature of the transaction was clearly shown by the documents, it was not necessary for the Assessing Officer to have orally examined the witnesses. As regards the production of the minutes of the meetings dated 1- 1-1990 and 5-1-1990, the learned counsel stated that even though these documents were not produced or filed before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, yet they were there on the file of the assessee which files were produced before the Assessing Officer. On the other aspects of the case, the learned counsel cited the following Court decisions : (1) Broach Distt. Co-operative Cotton Sales, Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 418 (SC), (2) CIT v. Strawboard Mfg. Co. Ltd [1989] 177 ITR 431 (SC), (3) CIT v. South Arcot Distt. Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC), (4) CIT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the terms and stipulations of the export order secured by SPAN (a copy whereof shall be furnished to RIFOX) and shall be responsible to the customer for the due performance of the contract for supply of the products and shall be liable for breach or non-performance of its contractual obligations including damages/penalties stipulated therein. Clause 8 : SPAN shall pay to RIFOX or to their bankers in case RIFOX avails of the bill discounting facility, the amount due to RIFOX, within 7 days of the receipt by SPAN of the sale proceeds from its customers. Clause 14 : RIFOX hereby agrees to indemnify SPAN in respect of any actions, claims, demands, costs, losses, expenses and damages, if any, caused by reason of the products contravening the specifications in force from time to time. Clause 15 : The date of delivery shall be normally construed to be the date on which delivery of goods alongwith all the neces- sary documents is given to the specified forwarding agents at an Indian port. Clause 16 : RIFOX Shall remburse to SPAN exprenses incurred by SPAN if any, in connection with pre-shipment inspection of the products, premium paid to the Export Credit Guar- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ousand only) is payable to us. 10. Taxes & Duties : Sales Tax will not be charged by you. We will furnish you Form N-14 if necessary. Central Excise Duty is not chargeable, since the goods are meant for export. You will arrange for clearance of the goods on Form AR4/AR4A under your own Bond and follow the prescribed procedure for adjust ment of the Bond Accounts. 11. Packing Credit : We hereby declare that we have not availed of Packing Credit from any bank against this export Contract, and shall not avail of the same. You, as manufacturers, may avail of Packing Credit from your bankers, in respect of this Order, based on this waiver. The original certificate dated 18-12-1989 from our bankers is enclosed herewith for your perusal. 12. Export benefits : Export benefits available in the form of Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) will be shared on a mutual basis. Decision to this effect is to be taken not later than February 15, 1990. The CCS sharing is over and above the commission mentioned in Points 2 and 4 of this Annexure. REP Licence and Duty Drawback will accrue to you in respect of supplies made by you against this order. The documents necessary for this pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties really intended to create a relationship of principal and agent. In this connection, we would like to observe that under the rules of interpretation of evidence, what is apparent is presumed to be real until the party contending otherwise is able to prove that it is not so. In the present case, clause 22 does clearly define the relationship between the parties. Since it is the assessee who contends that the relationship was not of principal to principal basis, it was incumbent upon the assessee to prove to the contrary. The assessee has neither made any serious effort, nor succeeded in proving that the relationship between it and SPAN was not of principal to principal basis. In this connection, it would be further necessary to refer to clause 21 of the agreement which lays down that " this agreement supersedes all earlier understandings, arrangements or agreements, whether oral or written, relating hereto, and shall be modified only by mutual consent in writing ". In the present case, no mutual consent in writing modifying, the terms and conditions or understandings or arrangements under the agreement dated 25-12-1989 has been executed between the parties, and, as such, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when a domestic sale takes place. In case Span was intended to be an agent of Rifox, then there would not have been any question of domestic sale so as to attract sales-tax liability. The question of providing a clause of the nature as clause 10 would, therefore, not have arisen. A seller cannot sell the goods to himself. Similarly, a seller cannot sell the goods to his agent who is supposed to act on behalf of his principal. III : Another aspect which requires consideration is the contract agreement between Span and the Russian party. A photocopy of this document has been made available at pages 62 to 76 of the departmental paper book. Here again, Span has been referred to as ' sellers '. In this contract agreement there is totally no mention at all of Rifox Engg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. or of its concern in any way with the execution of this deal. Had any agency (oral or documentary) been really created between Rifox and Span prior to the execution of this contract agreement, mention of Rifox in some for or the other would have been there in this document, or, alternatively, it would have been provided in this document embodying an international deal that Span was acting not as a principa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Rules. It appears that the learned CIT(A) has gravely erred in using this circumstance in favour of the assessee's contention that it was the assessee who was the real exporter. Rather this circumstance weighs heavily against the assessee's contention. The Form No. N-14B is issued under rule 21A copy whereof is available at page 53 of the departmental paper book. As would be evident from rule 21A and the tenor of this Form, the certificate in this form is delivered by a dealer purchasing goods from another dealer and selling the same in the course of export out of the territory of India within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956. In the present case, it was Span Overseas P. Ltd. which had furnished this Certificate to Rifox Engg. (I) P. Ltd. In other words, it was the ultimate seller (in India) who had furnished this Certificate to a penultimate seller, i.e., the assessee. Contrary to this factual position, the learned CIT(A) has misconstrued the event and held that such Certificate is issued by a penultimate seller to an ultimate seller. By recording such erroneous finding of fact, she has proceeded to draw a wrong conclusion to the ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, in no case, these documents can be pressed into service to the advantage of the assessee. Rather, from a perusal of Form No. A.R. 4A, we find that this document discloses a fact which speaks adverse to the assessee's contention. In column 13 it has been stated that the excisable goods which are sought to be removed from the factory under this application are to be exported through Span Overseas P. Ltd. When the Bench required the learned counsel for the assessee to explain, he candidly conceded that this circumstance was unfavourable to the assessee's case, but stated that this was only a mistake and, therefore, cannot be given much significance. We, however, feel that this fact stated by the assessee in its own application is highly important and cannot be lost sight of. Rather, it is indicative of the fact that it was Span which was to export the goods removed from the assessee-manufacturer's factory. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the fact that it was the assessee who had furnished the General Bond in Form B-1 indicates that it was the assessee who was exporting the goods. We have given our careful thought to this argument of the learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is the case with the Shipping Bill available at page 61 of the departmental paper book. Thus, all the documentary evidence is indicative of the fact that it was Span who was the exporter and shipper of the goods. VII : Forwarding/Clearing Agents : 25. The next fact which is relevant to the present question is, as to who was the clearing/forwarding agent for this consignment and who has appointed that agent. The Shipping Bill available at page 61 of the departmental paper book shows that in the present case it was A.T.C. (Clearing & Shipping) Pvt. Ltd. which had forwarded this consignment. A copy of this Shipping Bill is issued to enable an exporter of goods to make a claim for drawback. The A.T.C. (Clearing & Shipping) Pvt. Ltd. has certified, vide its document at page 83 of the departmental paper book, that they had arranged the shipment of the Heat Exchangers under this contract with the Russian party and that they, namely, A.T.C. (Clearing & Shipping) P. Ltd. had acted as the agent of Span Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and all the documents required under the Customs Act were furnished by Span Overseas P. Ltd. as the exporter. They have further certified that the bills for clearing and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of Rs.10 lakhs was paid to Steam & Process Aids, a firm, one of whose partners was Shri R.E. Chothia who was also the then Hon. Chairman of Rifox. We have examined this document and find that this document also takes the department further to the proof that the assessee Rifox was not the exporter of the goods. This agreement purports to be an agency agreement effective from 1-11-1989 and under this document, Steam & Process Aids had been appointed as the sole selling agent for territories of U.S.S.R. and other East European countries, Iran and Australia. Clause 6 of this agreement obliges the principal, i.e., Rifox, not to appoint any other selling agent in the territories mentioned in clause 3 above. Clause 7(d) lays down that all the orders for the products of the principal shall always be in the name of principal. In this connection, it is noteworthy that had Span also been an agent of the assessee, like provision would have been made in the agreement dated 25-12-1989 executed between the assessee and Span. The fact that this was not done also indicates that the relationship between Rifox and Span was not that of principal and agent, but principal to principal. X : Deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods intended to be sent by sea, that the seller is bound to deliver the goods on board ship free of cost to the buyer." 29. It would be seen from the above that as per the Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, FOB is a stipulation connected only with price. Similarly other Dictionary also shows that this stipulation is mainly connected with price. Sometimes it may also indicate the location of delivery. But then, this position can be true only when the context so requires and/or the time and place of delivery is not well indicated otherwise. In the case before us the position is entirely different. As per clause 15 of the agreement dated 25-12-1989 between Rifox and Span the date of delivery was to be normally construed to be the date on which delivery of the goods along with the necessary documents was given to the specified forwarding agents at an Indian port. Now, it is in evidence and has been held to be proved that the goods in the present case were delivered to A.T.C. (Clearing & Shipping) agents at Bombay who were appointed by Span. This means the delivery took place when the goods along with the necessary documents were delivered to these forwarding agents. These agents in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, or bailee, when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the principal -- Weiner v. Swales, 217 Mc 123, 141 A. 2d 749, 750. Compensation to an administrator or other fiduciary for the faithful discharge of his duties." Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law : " Commission, an order or authority to do some act. In the law of contracts and agency, a commission is an authority to an agent to enter into a contract especially one for the sale or purchase of goods ; such a commission generally included on engagement by the principal to remunerate the agent, and hence ' commission ' is regularly used to denote the remuneration paid to an agent." As against this, it was submitted by the learned senior departmental representative that the word ' commission ' has been used loosely in the Purchase Order. This was done with a view to ensure a fixed margin of profit for Span and also to enable it to participate and share in the excess price, if any, paid by the Russian party. The learned senior departmental representative further submitted that mere use of the word ' commission ' in a contract does not convert a relationship of vendor and pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not that of principal to agent. As has already been stated, the agreement dated 25-12-1989 clearly provides that the relationship sought to be created by that document was that of principal to principal and not that of principal to agent. The fact that the Purchase Order was placed by Span with Rifox and the goods were purchased on payment of price also show that the transaction was one of purchase and sale. The fact that Rifox sought, obtained and furnished to the sales-tax authorities a Certificate in Form No. N- 14B also shows that it was a case of domestic/local sale by Rifox to Span. Otherwise, such Certificate would have been totally unnecessary and of no avail. So far as the direct evidence is concerned, the Managing Director of Span has clearly stated that the relationship was that of principal to principal and the transaction between Rifox and Span was that of sale and purchase. Shri Shivnani and Shri C.S. Gandhi are both inherently interested witnesses. The only independent witness whose oral examination has been recorded is Shri R.E. Chothia. It is an admitted position that he was the Hon. Chairman of Rifox during the relevant period. Besides this, he was also a partn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance of these documents, the assessee has sought to prove before the learned CIT(A) that the relationship between Rifox and Span was that principal and agent. These two documents read as under : " SPAN " " MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1st JANUARY 1990 AT SAROSH BHAVAN PRESENT : RIFOX : Mr. C.S. Gandhi SPAN : Mr. M. Shivnani Mr. R.E. Chothia Mr F.J. Dastoor Mr. P.C. Nambiar Mr. S.G. Karandikar Mr. V.M. Uchil SUB : CONTRACT NO. 589/1859809/90061-09-322 OUR PURCHASE ORDER NO. 89/01 DATED 25-12-198 1. The point of calculating the commission due to Span was discussed and agreed that the commission now payable as per the method suggested by Mr. Gandhi is Rs. 48.58 lacs. A written confirmation to this effect will be sent by Span to Rifox. It has been further clarified that henceforth, the commission payable to Span will be calculated on the following lines : 10% on the full contract, plus 50% on the excess value over the price quoted by Rifox. 2. The possibility of getting packing credit by Rifox was explored. Considering the present working capital available with Rifox, Canara bank shows their reluctance in giving the requisite packing credit. Span suggested that Mr. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents were filed before the Assessing Officer. There is no mention of these documents in the assessment order or in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Had any such meeting taken place and minutes recorded, Shri Shivnani and Shri Chothia would have been cross-examined on the point. Even the oral examination of Shri Gandhi himself is silent on this point. There was thus no attempt on behalf of the assessee to prove that any such meetings did take place and such minutes were in fact recorded and signed by the concerned persons. We similarly agree with the learned senior departmental representative that the learned CIT(A) has violated the provisions of rule 46A in admitting these documents. For this reason also, these documents cannot be given any weightage. For argument sake, even if these documents are considered as part of, and read as, evidence, yet they do not succeed in proving the assessee's contention that the relationship between Rifox and Span i.e. the relationship of principal to principal had changed into one of principal to agent. Clause 2 of the minutes dated 8-1-1990 in respect of the meetings dated 5-1-1990 says that the agency agreement was to be signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties. The learned CIT(A), in reaching her conclusions, had heavily relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. This decision has been in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd.'s case and photocopy of the same has been placed by the assessee on its paper book. The assessee has also placed on its paper book the photocopy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mineral & Metal Trading Corpn. It was the said decision of the Delhi High Court which was the subject-matter of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mineral & Metal Trading Corpn.'s case. The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Delhi High Court and allowed the appeal of the M.M.T.C. holding it to be the exporter for the purpose of section 280-ZC. The learned counsel for the assessee agreed before us that since the decision of the Delhi High Court, on which the learned CIT(A) had placed reliance, cannot govern the facts of the present case, it is the ratio of the Supreme Court decision which would prevail. It would be seen from the judgment of the Supreme Court that the facts in the case before the Supreme Court were similar to the facts in the case before us. Rather the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agent and the assessee-manufacturer was the exporter. It has been held in this judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that unless and until the profits are earned by the activity of exporting goods out of India either directly or through an intermediary, the assessee cannot invoke sec. 2(5) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1962, for rebate. It was further held in that case that the words " profits and gains derived from the export of any goods or merchandise out of India " must be construed as profits earned or received by an assessee by transporting goods or merchandise out of India. As the assessee had only supplied tobacco on commission basis to third parties who ultimately exported the goods out of India, the transactions in so far as the assessee was concerned, were only commission sales which had no concern or connection with the export and as such the assessee was not entitled to rebate on the commission transactions. We do not understand as to how this judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court helps the assessee before it. So far as the decision dated 3-11-1987 of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the ITA No. 1220 (Coch.)/ 1986 in the case of M/s. Sea Pearl Industries is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s principle goes. The common ratio of these decisions is entitled to highest respect and weightage. But then, we find that the ratio is hardly relevant for the purposes of the issue under consideration before us. The entitlement to deduction under section 80HHC is being contested by the revenue not on account of different construction/interpretation of that provision of the income-tax Act. Rather, the dispute is confined only to the question of fact as to whether it was the assessee who was the real exporter of the goods. For arriving at a finding of fact on that question, pressing into service the ratio of these decisions of the Supreme Court is neither necessary nor relevant. 40. In view of the above discussion and the findings recorded and the conclusion drawn by us therein, we hold that the assessee had neither exported out of India Heat Exchangers nor had received in India the sale proceeds thereof in convertible foreign exchange (in the present case in Indian rupees on account of bilateral accounts system with Russia). The assessee was, therefore, not entitled to any deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The learned CIT(A) has thus clearly erred in allowing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
