9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and framed a fresh assessment on 29.03.2004. In this case, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.7,40,04,922/- originally claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act, primarily added on account of certain investigations carried out by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). One of the grounds was that, whereas, originally the assessee used to export its consignments to Moscow, however, for the given relevant period, he allegedly did so to Helsinki via Moscow. There were also certain allegations based upon the inflated value of the bills claimed or that some of bills/invoices were sourced from fictitious firms. These two were based upon the DRI investigations. The reassessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00- 2000, the same Assessing Officer as that of assessee firm vide assessment orders dated 08/10/2004 has accepted the exports made by the proprietary concern of Shri Rajeev Verma in all the assessment year. 1) For denial of deduction u/s 80HHC, the only issue remained as to whether the assessee had made export outside India or not. The AO has admitted that the assessee has earned business income of Rs.7,39,59,930/-. He has made reference of the investigation carried out by the DRI and he has used this report as basis for disallowance of the deduction. As per this report the allegation was of over valuation of export pertaining to the period 1998 to 2000. The contention of the assessee remained that the report of DRI pertains to the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that if the AO is of the view that this draw back is not due to the assessee, then it will be a liability of the assessee and cannot be turned as income. If it is to be termed as income, then the nature of income will "Draw Back" only, contended the assessee. In absence of any specific rebutal of these contentions of the assessee, we are of the view, that the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in accepting the above contention of the assessee questioning the disallowance of the claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. The ground no-2 is thus rejected. So far as Ground No.-3 is concern, we find that the assessee had sought permission for admission of the additional evidence filed by way of photocopy of seized record which could not have obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
