9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion appears to be covered by decision in Abad Fisheries (Supra), the revenue has chosen, not to accept the decision of the Tribunal in view of the definition of the terms 'export turnover' and 'total turnover' mentioned in explanation (b) and (ba) to Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The substantial question of law, involved in this appeal is : - "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in directing the A.O. to exclude unrealized export receipts of Rs.65,92,837/- from the 'total turnover', without appreciating that definition of 'total turnover' given in explanation (ba) to 80 HHC does not provide for any such exclusion from the 'total turnover' of the assessee?" & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment period, and thus these receipts should not have been added as per definitions of expression 'export turnover' and 'total turnover'. 7. Sri S.D. Singh, on the other hand, states that Section 80 HHC of the Act provides for a formula to work total turnover for the purposes of assessment. He submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that if an amount does not form part of the export turnover, it cannot be form part of total turnover. 8. The Appellate Tribunal gave the following reasons for arriving at a conclusion:- "2. The main issue involved is computation of deduction u/s 80 HHC. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of carpets. During the year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the aforesaid amount from the 'total turnover'. 4. Against this, the ld. D.R relied on the order of the AO, whereas the ld. A.R. supported the order of the ld. CIT (A). 5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for the order of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Abad Fisheries case (supra). The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in this regard held as under:- " So far as the appeal filed by the Department is concerned, the question of law that is raised is whether, the Tribunal was correct in excluding Rs. 11,10,377 for the purpose of denominator of the total turnover. While dealing with the case of the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and some other amounts, which are actually or deemed to be part of total turnover. If for certain reasons an amount does not become part of export turnover then that cannot also become part of total turnover. It cannot be a case for something as excluded form export turnover, but still will be a part of total turnover. It is illogical. If an amount is not a profit, then it will not be a profit, either from the export or from total turnover. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground No.1 raised by the revenue." 9. The Kerala High Court in Abad Fisheries' case (supra) held that the Tribunal was correct in excluding the unrealized export receipts for the purpose of applying it as a denominator of the total turnover. The amount was claimed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
