TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involved is Assessment Years (AY) 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 and 2003-2004. 3. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed, in order to adjudicate upon the captioned appeals, are as follows : 3.1. The respondent is in the business of manufacture, sale and export of diamond jewellery. In respect of the relevant periods, to which we have made a reference above, the respondent had made local sales to another company, namely, Rosy Jewellery Exports Limited; a company situated in Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (in short 'SEEPZ') at Mumbai. 3.2. The respondent was under the impression that, since, these were deemed exports, it would be entitled to deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the 1961 Act'). 3.3. We are informed by the counsel for the respondent; a fact, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue, that the returns, in the usual and normal course, were filed in respect of the aforementioned period, wherein, deduction under Section 80HHC of the 1961 Act, had been claimed qua local sales made to Rosy Jewellery Exports Limited. 3.4. We are further informed that the Revenue reopened the assessments for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the relevant statutory provisions in this regard. Any misreading of the provisions or misinterpretation thereof cannot confer any benefit on the assesses. Neither the same can be treated as a bona fide claim. The assesses has not been able to justify his claim in the above matter by relying upon any direct decision of the jurisdictional High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. Neither the assesses can take shelter behind the mistake, if any, committed by the Assessing Officer in this regard, as such mistakes cannot confer any vested right in the assesses. 7. The most important and relevant fact in this case is that the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC on the alleged 'Deemed Exports' had been made by the assesses in the original returns and it was never withdrawn voluntarily by the assesses by filing revised returns before the completion of the original assessments. As a matter of fact, the assesses has neither filed revised returns of income suo motto (sic suo motu) within a reasonable time, withdrawing its claim for deduction u/s 80HHC on the alleged deemed exports, even after the appellate order was passed by the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case for the Assessment y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he outset, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 04.01.2010, and remitted the matter to the Chief Commissioner for adjudicating upon the waiver petitions on merits, albeit, in accordance with law. 7. The Revenue, in these circumstances, has preferred the captioned appeals. 8. On behalf of the Revenue, Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, has advanced submissions, while on behalf of the respondent/Assessee, submissions have been advanced by Mr.V.S.Jayakumar. 9. It is the submission of Ms.Muralikrishnan that the order of the learned Single Judge would have to be set aside, as not only was the order dated 04.01.2010, a reasoned order and therefore, required no interference, but also, for the reason that in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the respondent had failed to establish the provisions of the Circular dated 26.06.2006 were applicable. It was, thus, submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion that the order dated 04.01.2010, was passed without bearing in mind the provisions of the Circular dated 26.06.2006. 10. On the other hand, Mr.Jayakumar, who appears for the respondent, submits that the respondent was under a bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court is required to look at the contents of the Circular dated 26.06.2006, in order to come to a conclusion, in one way or the other, as to whether or not, the respondent would be entitled to seek waiver of interest. 11.1. We may also note herein that the learned counsel for the Revenue, Ms.Muralikrishnan, is right in her submission that the Chief Commissioner in his order dated 04.01.2010, had exhaustively dealt with merits of the waiver petitions and, then, come to a conclusion that the circumstances obtaining in the case did not fall within the provisions of clauses 2(a) to 2(d) of the Circular. 11.2. Therefore, what is required to be seen is what is the scope and ambit of the Circular dated 26.06.2006. A bare perusal of the Circular would show that the CBDT has delegated its power to the Chief Commissioner and/or the Director General of Income Tax to reduce or waive interest charged under Section 234A or under Section 234B or under Section 234C of the 1961 Act, in the classes of cases or classes of incomes specified in paragraph 2 of the said Circular. 11.3. The extent to which the said delegatees, i.e., Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax, may waive or red....