TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s cloth, claimed deduction under section 80HHC of the Act at Rs. 1,12,79,533/- but restricted the same to income returned at Rs. 80,75,780/- Thus, the assessee disclosed income at 'nil' after claiming deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit the working of export incentive credited to the profit and loss account. The assessee submitted the working of duty benefit, excise duty refund and duty drawback. The assessee explained that the duty benefit was receivable by it to the extent of Rs. 1,10,56,774/. The duty benefit had been worked out by the assessee on the basis of exports made by it. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the duty benefit did not fall under clauses (iiia) (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28 of the Act and, accordingly, issued notice to the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee contended that the duty benefit had been worked out by it on the basis of advance licence available on export of goods which is in the nature of cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or receivable against the export under the scheme of the Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to the export made by the assessee and the scheme under which the duty exemption entitlements were allowed to the assessee in the shape of licence, were known to the AO. It is, therefore, not a case where the Revenue would be taken by surprise if the assesses is permitted to raise the ground that sum in question has been wrongly subjected to tax. It is no doubt true that assessee showed this amount as taxable receipt and further claimed deduction u/s.80HHC on this amount and is now seeking to raise altogether different claim by saying that amount is not a revenue receipt at all. On account of above circumstances. The assessee cannot be debarred from raising the claim. There is no estoppel against the statute and income is to be taxed as per statutory provisions and not on the basis of impression or views which the assessee is supposed to have taken of the matter. It is further settled law that entries made by the assessee in the books of accounts are not conclusive on the question of taxability at a receipt. The question has to be determined in accordance with law. Therefore, the mere fact assessee showed this amount of Rs. 1,10,56,774/- as taxable receipt is not material. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case, has merely sent back the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the benefit of privilege in the form of advance licence allotted to the assessee is taxable or not. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law so as to warrant interference. Reliance was placed upon the decision of 345 ITR 135 and 351 ITR 454 (Karn). 9. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal after recording that the plea raised before it was also raised before the Assessing Officer, has observed that the assessee had shown the amount of Rs. 1,10,56,774/- as taxable receipt and further claimed deduction under section 80HHC on such amount and was now seeking to raise an altogether different claim by saying that the amount was not revenue receipt at all. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee cannot be debarred from raising such a claim and that there is no estoppel against the statute and income has to be taxed as per the statutory provisions and not on the basis of impression or views which the assessee is supposed to have taken in the matter. The Tribunal observed that it is settled law that entries made by the assessee in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as also in its return. The Assessing Officer held that it was not export incentive falling under any clause of section 28 and, therefore, refused to grant deduction on this amount under section 80 HHC of the Act. The receipt was charged to tax as shown in the return. The assessee did not object to the taxability of the receipt before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, no finding was recorded on the issue. In the above background, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee was responsible for preventing the revenue authorities from examining in detail the question of taxability of the amount. The Tribunal observed that it had held that the working of export incentive as given by the assessee and examined by the Assessing Officer is not taxable, but hastened to add that it was not its finding that no benefit or privilege accrued to the assessee when licence was allotted to it on export. The licence given to the assessee has a commercial value and whether the benefit or privilege in the shape of licence is taxable or not has not been examined. The Tribunal was, accordingly, of the view that the question was required to be examined and that for that purpose the matter was ....