9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Following substantial questions of law have been claimed: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT has jurisdiction to revise an assessment made by the AO allowing the deduction from computation of taxation of profits of the Industrial Undertaking u/s 80-I of the Act in respect of the amounts of duty draw back received for the manufactured goods exported by it? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct construction of section 80-I of the I.T. Act and correct understanding on the Apex Court's decision in the matter of Sterling Foods as reported in 237 ITR 579 the Tribunal did not err in law in disallowing the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act was issued on 28.9.1990 and in pursuance to the notice, return was filed on 9.11.1990. The assessment order was passed on 25.8.1992. The assessee was engaged in manufacture of garments and exported thereof, as also exporting of traded garments (i.e. purchased and exported). The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction under Section 80-I only qua the manufactured goods exported out of India. Appeal was filed claiming deduction under Section 80-I on the export of traded goods. Further contending that labelling and packing of the goods bought from market tantamounts to manufacture and therefore deduction under Section 80-I of the Act be allowed. The 1st Appellate Authority relying upon the decision of the previous year in the case of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Explanation 1(c) to Section 263(1) of the Act is relied upon. The same is also quoted: "Explanation 1 (c) where any order referred to in this subsection and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal." Learned counsel for the revenue defended the orders stating that the issue before the 1st Appellate Authority was not with regard to deduction under Section 80-I on duty draw back, rather it was seized of the issue "whether deduction under Section 80-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the issue as the deduction was allowed by the Assessing Officer. There is no quibble that the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the explanation to Section 251 of the Act can consider the matter arising out of the proceedings in which the appeal is filed irrespective of the fact that the said matter has not been raised by the appellant. There is also no dispute/ that as per explanation 1(c) to Section 263(1), the revision cannot be done of the issue which has been considered and decided in appeal. In the present case, the issue whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80-I of the Act on duty draw back with regard to goods manufactured and exported was neither considered nor decided in appeal. The reliance on certain part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
