2004 (11) TMI 283 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds section 80HHC decision, directs review for section 80RR deduction

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the decision on the section 80HHC claim but directing the CIT(A) to consider the additional ground for ... Exporters Issues Involved:1. Claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Consideration of additional ground for deduction under section 80RR of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The main issue in this appeal pertains to the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, an artist, declared income from the sale of paintings both locally and through export. The local sales were Rs. 89,800, and export sales were Rs. 2,43,038. The total income from the sale of paintings was Rs. 1,89,969, out of which a deduction of Rs. 1,38,051 was claimed under section 80HHC.The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee did not provide evidence of customs clearance for the exported paintings and thus questioned the claim under section 80HHC. The assessee responded, asserting that the paintings were sold in an exhibition in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and the proceeds were received in convertible foreign exchange through proper banking channels. The assessee also provided various documents, including a passport, bank certificates, and a letter from the organizing gallery, to support her claim.However, the AO found these documents insufficient to prove the actual export of paintings. The AO emphasized that the Customs Act, 1962 mandates customs clearance for any export, which the assessee failed to provide. Consequently, the AO disallowed the claim under section 80HHC, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].On appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel argued that the provided materials were sufficient to establish the export of paintings. The counsel also contended that the AO misapplied the provisions of the Customs Act and that section 80HHC should be construed liberally as an incentive provision. However, the Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities, stating that no export of goods could be effected without customs clearance, and the assessee failed to prove the actual export of paintings from India to Germany. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on this issue.2. Consideration of additional ground for deduction under section 80RR of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The second issue concerns whether the CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the additional ground raised by the assessee for deduction under section 80RR. The assessee argued that, as an artist, she was entitled to a deduction under section 80RR for income derived from a person not resident in India. This ground was raised as an alternative to the claim under section 80HHC.The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated this additional ground. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to dispose of the additional ground after hearing the assessee.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the section 80HHC claim but directing the CIT(A) to consider the additional ground for deduction under section 80RR.