2015 (1) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vised return on 15.06.1994 declaring total income at Rs.Nil but, in the computation attached with the revised return, the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC was revised to Rs. 2,73,91,138/. The increase in the claim of deduction was on account of the export incentive relating to export made in the Financial Year 1992-93 relevant to the A.Y. 1993-94 on mercantile basis although, actually, the export incentive amounting to Rs. 17,45,430/was received during the F.Y. 1993-94 relevant to the A.Y. 1994-95. The CIT further found that the A.O has completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 29.03.1996 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,23,950/. In the above assessment order passed by the A.O., export incentive of Rs. 17,45,430/was consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Act. 3. In response to the said Notice, the assessee furnished his reply vide reply dated 23.09.1997. After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the CIT set aside the order of the A.O and remanded the matter for deciding the same afresh in light of the observations made in its order dated 05.12.1997. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT. 4. The following question of law was referred by the Appellate Tribunal for our opinion;                   "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the order passed by the CIT u/s.263 of the Act?" 5. We have he....