9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80HHC(2)(a) of the said Act beyond six months to forbear from giving effect to the amendment in respect of section 80HHC(2)(a) with effect from June 1, 1999, by the Finance Act, 1999, and also to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time for repatriation of balance export value beyond six months. - in my opinion, it would not be proper for me to pass any order on this application and on these facts this application must fail and is hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed within six months. According to the petitioner, petitioner No. 1 realised a sum of Rs. 25,71,655 out of total sale proceeds of Rs. 40,19,677.69 leaving a balance sum of Rs. 14,48,022.80. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was able to realise Rs. 36,13,808 out of the said total sale proceeds. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") refused to grant any deduction to the petitioner in respect of the amount which could not be realised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction under section 80HHC(2)(a). The claim of the said deduction under section 80HHC is applicable in respect of the export proceeds. According to the petitioner, the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition. Mr. Hirak Mitra, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the Assessing Officer had no authority or any jurisdiction to decide the matter in view of the fact that only the Commissioner has power either to grant extension or to refuse the same. Therefore, the order of refusal passed by the Assessing Officer under section 80HHC of the said Act is totally without jurisdiction for the said assessment year. He further contended that the amendment which has taken place after the transaction took place. Therefore, according to him, the changes in the Finance Act will not allow the Commissioner to refuse or to return the said application filed by the petitioners for extension. He further contended that the changes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Kolkata, on the stay petition. On February 27, 2001, an application was filed under section 155(13) read with section 154. On February 28, 2001, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV's order was issued on the stay petition and thereafter, on February 28, 2001, recovery of demand was made by the Assessing Officer from the HDFC Bank. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed an application on March 5, 2001, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Kolkata, for extension of time under section 80HHC(2)(a). On March 7, 2001, application was filed before the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the attachment of bank accounts. Then on May 9, 2001, the application filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings are not permissible under the law. In support of such contention, he relied upon the judgments reported in Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. S.C. Tewari, ITO [1986] 158 ITR 439 (Delhi); Purshottam Thackersey v. K.N. Anantarama Ayyar, CWT [1985] 154 ITR 395 (Bom) and Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC). Mr. Som further contended that the said judgment in Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 560 (Cal), has no application in this case and he further drew my attention to the Explanation to section 80HHC(2) where it has been specifically stated that the Commissioner has no power because he is not dealing in the foreign exchange. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
