TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax(Appeals)-III at Chennai, dated 26-10-2010. The appeals arise out of the orders passed by the assessing authority under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee-company is engaged in manufacture and export of leather goods. The assessments in these cases were completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Deduction was given to the assessee under section 80HHC of the Act. In the original assessments the profit on sale of DEPB licence was also considered for the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 3. Thereafter, in the light of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Assessing Officer observed that the claim of the assessee made under section 80HHC in the case of export incentive by way of DEPB, require....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Bench decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal reported in 318 ITR AT 78 Mumbai (ITAT Supplement) was disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner, both on grounds of limitation as well as on merits, rejecting the appellant's claim for relief under section 80HHC of the Act by his order dated 25-10-2010. 2. The order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) was served on the Petitioner/Appellant company on 22-11-2010 and as such, the appeal to this Hon'ble Tribunal against the said order should have been filed within 60 days from the date of service of the order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals), i.e., on or before 20-1-2011. 3. However, in the light of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... favour of the assessee. 6. It was in these circumstances that the Petitioner Company has now been advised by its Tax consultants to file an appeal to this Hon'ble Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals)-III, Chennai dated 26-10-2010 in ITA No.156/09-10." 7. We heard both sides in detail. On going through the averments made by the assessee-company in the affidavit filed before us, we find that the assessee was not guilty of negligence or such attributes in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal in time. In fact, the assessee-company has earnestly made a follow-up of its claim of deduction under section 80HHC in respect of the DEPB. This is clear from the fact that the assessee has claimed such deducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e enlarged in assessee's case. 10. We find much force in the argument of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT, 342 ITR 49, has held that where an assessee has an export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crores and has made profits on transfer of the DEPB credit under clause(iiid) of section 28, he would not get the benefit of addition to export profits under the third or fourth proviso to sub-section(3) of section 80HHC, but he would get the benefit of exclusion of a smaller figure from profits of the business under Explanation(baa) to section 80HHC of the Act. The Hon'ble Court held that there is nothing in Explanation(baa) to section 80HHC to show that this benefit of exclusion of a smaller figure from ....