9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporary evidence. 2.1. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 14/12/2007 were that the assessee-company during the year was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals. It has been observed by the Assessing Officer that in the past ITAT A Bench Ahmedabad vide an order dated 21/07/2006 (ITA No.90/Ahd/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02) had restored certain issues which were in respect of exchange rate fluctuation gain, income on sale of DEPB licence and foreign exchange rate difference. Accordingly, as per the directions of the Tribunal, show-cause notice was issued. The Assessing Officer has also observed that the Tribunal has made a remark that the provisions with regard to the deduction u/s.80HHC have since been amended and the evidence about total turnover was not available, therefore the matter had been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has given a categorical finding that the assessee s export turnover had exceeded ₹ 10 crores. Thereupon, the Assessing Officer has commented that once the turnover has exceeded the prescribed lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw in allowing the appeal of the assessee whereby he had directed, to include exchange rate difference as business income for computation of deduction u/s.80 HHC(3), overlooking the fact that the assessee received the income due to conversion in rupees as a result of exchange rate fluctuation and it was not income from exports. Moreover, the assessee also failed to furnish any contemporary evidence either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. 4.1. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that the Tribunal has directed to decide the issue of exchange rate difference on examining the date of receipt as prescribed in the Statute. Consequence thereupon, a show-cause notice was issued, however, the Assessing Officer has given a finding that the necessary information about the receipt of exchange rate fluctuation was not furnished. As per Assessing Officer the assessee has not furnished the working of exchange rate difference, details of bills whether pertained the current year or past year and whether the amount was received within the stipulated time. The Assessing Officer has, thus, concluded that the conditions as stipulated u/s.80HHC(2) have not been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the year there was outstanding sale consideration. The same was converted into Indian Currency from foreign currency at the prevailing exchange rate and duly recorded in the books as it was consistently done in the past. Thereafter, the difference between the exchange rate and the actual realization was either debited or credited to Currency Rate Difference A/c. It was also informed that the said method of accounting was as per the Accounting Standard 11 prescribed. Hence the Currency Rate Difference was claimed as business income for the purpose of computation of deduction U/s Sec. 80HHC. Case Laws relied upon were CIT vs.Amba Impex 282 ITR 144 (Guj.), Gami Exports 94 TTJ 557 (Ahd.). Along with the copy of this letter the assessee has also placed before us a chart to explain that the realization was done with in the statutory period. Assessee has annexed Bank Certificate of Export and Realization . Once all such details were very much available before the lower authorities then it not fair on the part of the Revenue to again challenge those factual findings. Applying the principal laid down by the Honble Courts Ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed the claim . Resultantly this groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of the Cochin bench in the case of M Mani Vs. ACIT (51 TTJ 273) wherein it was held that the levy of interest u/s.234A/B/C is an appealable issue and therefore opportunity of hearing must be granted to the assessee. If the opportunity is not granted, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the levy of interest deserves to be deleted. 8.1. In respect of this ground, a view has already been taken in the said decision of ITAT B Bench Ahmedabad in the case of Intas Exports vs. ACIT(supra), wherein it was held that as under: 7.1. In this regard, the vehement contention was that the effect of the amendment was the reason for charging of interest on short payment of tax either advance tax or self assessment. The Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee further vehemently contested that the proviso inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 were after the filing of the return in the year 2003 and 2004 respectively. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause not to take into account the amended provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was, further contested that though the amendment took place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
