9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Babu & sons vs. Union of India [1996 (5) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD High Court]. In the present case the assessee had produced the Sale To Foreign Tourists Voucher, which not only recorded the name and address of the customer (tourist), but also his/her passport number and the declaration given by him that the goods will not be gifted or sold in India. The goods sold at counter at the shop/emporium were sold to be taken out of the country, which necessarily involved clearance of baggage, by the customs authorites. There was no further proof, nor any document in proof of clearance of the goods at the Customs Station by the assessee is required. The declaration in the form of Sale To Foreign Touris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of law have been framed: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction of ₹ 4,45,292/- u/s 80HHC to the assessee on counter sales inspite of the specific provisions of Explanation (aa) to Section 80 HHC of the Act of 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT as well as the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act of 1961, when there is no finding to the effect that the goods were cleared at any of the custom station? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the ITAT as well as the CIT(A) is perverse, contrary to the record and untenable in the eye of law?" 2. The facts, given rise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liwal [(2004) 271 ITR 448 (Raj.)], Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Motilal R. Minda [(2001) 250 ITR 831 (Raj.)] and Income Tax Officer vs. Vaibhav Textiles [(2002) 258 ITR 346 (Raj.)]. The Allahabad High Court has also taken the same view in Marble Men vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [(2005) 272 ITR 81 (All.)] following its earlier judgments. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department-appellant tried to distinguish the decisions, on the ground of the language used in the Explanation (aa) of sub-section (4C) of section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, is that unless there is proof of the clearance at any Customs Station, as defined under section 2(13) of the Customs Act, 1962, the exemption was not allowable by the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment, it was not necessary for the assessee to have produced the documents of clearance of goods sold by him to the foreign tourists at any Customs Station. The Explanation (aa) is not a rule of evidence, nor raises any presumption. It also does not require any proof of clearance at any Customs Station. The explanation is couched in double negative. It is a rule of exclusion and excludes only those transactions, which do not involve clearance at any Customs Station. It cannot be read in a manner, as suggested by learned counsel appearing for the department that a proof of customs clearance of baggage must be provided to establish the export of goods out of India for the purpose of deduction of profits on such sales under section 80HHC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
