9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal didn't address that issue. However, assessee clarified that the assessee does not claim any deduction u/s 80HHC to the extent of such disputed amount. He further submitted that diminution of his eligibility for deduction u/s 80HHC would have no bearing on the assessee's ultimate tax liability. Thus, all tax appeal dismissed, subject to clarification given by Assessee - Decision in Favour of Assessee. - TAX APPEAL No.2471, 2473, 2475, 2476 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2012 - MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI AND MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI, JJ. For Appellants: MS PAURAMI B SHETH For Respondent: MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. COUNSEL with MRS SWATI SOPARKAR ORDER MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. In these appeals, the revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions including deductions under section 80HHC of the Act. While, therefore, denying such benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, the Assessing Officer simultaneously held that such amount of ₹ 70 lakhs would represent the unexplained cash credit of the assessee and he accordingly decided to tax the same under section 68 of the Act. In the order dated 26-3-2004 which the Assessing Officer had passed, he held that the export turnover eligible for deduction under section 80HHC is reduced from ₹ 585.91 crores to ₹ 585.21 crores. In other words, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act by the said amount of ₹ 70 lakhs. 4. The assessee carried th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 lakhs represented bogus sales and therefore the eligibility of the assessee's deduction under section 80HHC of the Act came to be reduced by such amount. Having done so, the Assessing Officer further proceeded to add the same amount under section 68 of the Act. 7. In view of the above situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Before closing, however, one issue needs clarification. As noted earlier, C.I.T. (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the assessee in toto. He, in fact, reversed the Assessing Officer's finding that the sale was bogus and that no export was made. On this basis, he not only deleted addition under section 68 of the Act, but also directed that the assessee shall be entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
