TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upsetting the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are set out hereunder. (i) The assessee is engaged in the business of exporting garments as well as sales in the domestic market. (ii) For the assessment year 199596 the assessee filed return of income on November 30, 1995 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,51,020. The return of income was processed under section 143(1)(a) on October 18, 1996. Notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on August 7, 1996. (iii) Vide the Department's lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e., the entire net profit of the assessee pertaining to its export business. (iv) Thereafter a notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax to the assessee on the ground that the assessment order under section 143(3) dated December 31, 1996 was erroneous as the assessee was entitled to only proportionate deduction in the light of section 80HHC(3) of the Act, and proposing suitable action. The assessee was given an opportunity to be heard in the matter. The Commissioner of Income-tax by his order dated March 30, 1999 accepted the fact that the assessee is involved in both export and domestic sales and is maintaining separate books of account and that the export profits are clearly id....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (v) The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax , dated March 30, 1999 appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated August 24, 2001 came to the finding that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal recorded that reliance was placed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax on the decision reported in the case of V. D. Swami and Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT reported in [1993] 44 ITD 91 (Mad) and in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC). The Tribunal record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. The order is, therefore, passed without application of mind. The advocate for the Revenue stated before us that except for this submission he has no other submission to make. 5. The advocate for the assessee on the other hand contended that there is no substance in the contention of the advocate for the Revenue that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind at the time of allowing the deduction of Rs. 65,07,090 under section 80HHC of the Act. He has pointed out that the Assessing Officer has sought particulars from the assessee and after the assessee provided all the particulars required by the Assessing Officer and after discussion the Assessing Officer took a view that the assessee is eligible to reduction of the entire export....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n his order he did not make elaborate discussion in that regard. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the advocates appearing for the Revenue as well as the assessee. In the instant case as recorded earlier, the Income-tax Officer had by his order dated October 30, 1996, sought details/explanation from the assessee which the assessee had given by his letter dated November 5, 1996. It is evident from the order of the Assessing Officer that he has considered all detailed particulars filed before him and after discussion allowed the deduction of the entire profit earned by the assessee pertaining to its export business. We are in complete agreement with the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 20....