TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to levy of penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), in respect of the said addition. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.3 of 2010 as ITA No. 489 of 2010 relates to levy of penalty as noticed earlier and is dependent upon the order passed in ITA No. 3 of 2010. 2. ITA No. 3 of 2010 has been preferred by the appellantrevenue under Section 260A of the Act against the order dated 12.06.2009, Annexure VII passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in M.A. No. 229/CHANDI/2008 arising out of ITA No. 58/CHANDI/2008 for the assessment year 1999-2000, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urate particulars of its income by claiming excess deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in ITA No. 3 of 2010, may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm which is engaged in making of bicycle parts for exports. Return of income for the assessment year in question was filed by the assessee on 29.11.1999 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 1,73,53,957/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act with the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Ludhiana and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of assessee was computed at Rs. 79,25,489/- after allowing deduction of Rs. 94,28,468/- under Section 80HHC of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2006, Annexure A.IV, passed under Section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 28.12.2007. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. It may be noticed that when the order under Section 154 of the Act was served on the assessee, the assessee also filed appeal before the Tribunal, against the order dated 25.09.2006 passed by the CIT(A), challenging the observation that the sale of scrap will also not be considered while computing the 'profits of the business'. Vide order dated 29.09.2008, the Tribunal decid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before the Tribunal. It was recorded by the Tribunal that if the sale of scrap is excluded from the purview of 'total turnover', the proportionate profit thereof shall also be reduced from the 'profits of the business' for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Thus, the order passed by the Assessing Officer on this aspect was sustained. With regard to the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 28.12.2007 arising out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act dated 28.11.2006, whereby order dated 3.10.2006 giving effect to the order of CIT(A) was amended, it was recorded that the rectification order was necessitated because the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exchange. For the said purpose the Government wanted to encourage business, traders and manufacturers to increase the export as to bring more foreign exchange in our country. If the purpose is to bring more foreign exchange and to encourage export, we are of the view that the legislature would surely like to give more benefit to persons who are making an effort to help our nation in the process of bringing more foreign exchange. If a trader or a manufacturer is trying his best to increase his exports, even at the cost of his business in a local market, we are sure that the Government would like to encourage such a person. In our opinion, once the Government decides to give some benefit to someone who is helping the nation in bringing foreig....