TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HC. The facts in brief are that the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 had declared nil income in the return filed on October 8, 2001 after claiming deduction of Rs. 4,94,310 under section 80HHC. In the original assessment made under section 143(3) on December 31, 2002, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of deduction under section 80HHC and assessed the total income at Rs. 4,94,310. In appeal, the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) had given part relief to the assessee. In further appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Tribunal in order dated May 10, 2006 in I. T. A. No. 1783/M/ 2004 observed that the ground raised by the Revenue related to deduction under section 80HHC in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee disputed the decision of the Assessing Officer and submitted before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute deduction as per the amended provisions but the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction and recomputed indirect cost of trading goods which had already been computed in the original assessment. The assessee had also raised an additional ground before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) requesting for claim of deduction under section 80HHE in respect of export of software products. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the additional ground and observed that no such claim had been made by assessee in the return and, therefore, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in going beyond the scope of direction given by the Tribunal. He, placed reliance on the judgment of hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Harsingar Gutkha P. Ltd. v. ITAT [2008] 219 CTR (All) 479 in which it was held that when direction is issued to any authority to do a certain thing in certain manner the thing must be done in that manner and in no other manner. Similarly reference was made to the judgment of the hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sri Vindhya Vasini Prasad Gupta v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 253 (All) which it was held that when the Tribunal had remanded the matter to consider one issue, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not empowered to go into other questions. The same view had been followed by the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmitted in the second round of appellate proceedings. As regards deduction under section 80HHC, it was submitted that the Tribunal had remanded the matter for fresh examination after considering the amended provisions and therefore, the Assessing Officer was entitled to look into computation of indirect cost. It was accordingly urged that the appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed. We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute raised is in relation to claim of deduction under section 80HHC and also under section 80HHE on which additional grounds have also been raised, one before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the other before the Tribunal. The assessee was in the bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which only related to allowance of deduction under section 80HHC in respect of incentives such as DEPB. The amended provisions did not cover computation of indirect cost in relation to export of trading goods under section 80HHC(3). The Assessing Officer in the original assessment had computed the direct and indirect cost in a particular manner while computing profit/loss from the export of trading goods which had become final as this aspect had not been disputed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the fresh assessment in pursuance of direction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to disturb the indirect cost computed in the original assessment. This position is settled by other judgme....