AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iming deduction of Rs. 46,77,076/- under Section 10BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The case was selected for scrutiny and the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 19.11.2010 at the returned income. Later on, it was noticed that the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act was completed for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 19.11.2010 at the total income of Rs. 8,46,320/- by allowing deduction under Section 10BA of the Act at Rs. 46,77,076/- as claimed by the assessee. The total business income was computed at Rs. 50,11,332/- before allowing the said deduction. Thus, 93.33% of the total income was allowed as deduction. Perusal of the assessment records revealed that Duty Draw Back amounting to Rs. 17,02,681/- was included in the business income of Rs. 50,11,332/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2012 to the appellant-assessee. The appellant-assessee through its authorised representative vide letter dated 03.04.2012 stated that the original return filed on 30.09.2008 may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of eligible articles is to be determined at Rs. 33,08,651/- by reducing the amount of Duty Draw Back of Rs. 17,02,681/- from total business income of Rs. 50,11,332/- and 93.33% thereof, which worked out at Rs. 30,86,971/-, is eligible for allowing the deduction under Section 10BA of the Act as against Rs. 46,77,076/- as claimed by the appellant-assessee. It was further noted that since the appellant-assessee had willfully concealed its income and given inaccurate particulars of income by way of claiming excess deduction under Section 10BA of the Act, the penal provisions envisaged under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were clearly attracted in the case and the penalty proceedings were ordered to be initiated separately. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the aforesaid order passed by the Assessing Officer. The first argument of the appellant-assessee was that the Assessing Officer had erred in law as well as in facts in initiating the proceedings under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act on the strength of subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court without forming requisite belief "as to escapement of income". This argument was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee vide impugned judgment dated 16.06.2017. Thereafter, the appellant-assessee filed an application before the ITAT seeking recall/rectification of aforesaid judgment, but that application was also dismissed by the ITAT vide order dated 16.01.2018. Hence, this appeal. This Court vide order dated 24.04.2018 admitted the present appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether learned ITAT were right in upholding the action of assessing officer in initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and consequent assessment made u/s 143(3)/147 of the IT Act, 1961? ii) Whether learned lower authorities were justified in holding that deduction u/s 10BA of the IT Act, 1961 is not available to the appellant on DEPB and DDB received by appellant and thereby confirming disallowance of deduction to the extent of Rs. 15,88,601/- u/s 10BA of the IT Act, 1961?" Mr. Sarvesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellantassessee argued that Section 147 of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment if he has "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. However, in the present case, the appellant-assessee had furnished all the details....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture of a rebate or remission on the purchase price of raw material and cost of manufacturing expenses and production. The handicraft industry has to survive in global competition and has to compete with dealers and manufacturers of various other countries. For this purpose, DEPB and DDB have been granted to exporters like the appellant to reduce the cost of production/manufacturing so that their handicraft articles can be exported in the global market at competitive rates. It is argued that the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that the said amounts of DEPB and DDB have been separately disclosed in the Profit and Loss Account with a view to make a true and full disclosure of the relevant facts to the concerned outside world. Therefore, the said amounts of DEPB and DDB are parts of profits of the export business carried on by the assessee and the same have rightly been considered as eligible for grant of deduction under Section 10BA of the Act. It is argued that grant of deduction under Section 10BA of the Act to the appellant-assessee has been accepted by the Assessing Officer himself who has accepted such claim on the entire income except on the amount of DEPB and DDB.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the CIT(A). The aforesaid question was answered by the Co( ordinate Bench of this Court in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue vide judgment dated 22.08.2017. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, (2012) 3 SCC 593; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 6 SCC 747. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the ITAT which has upheld the judgment of the CIT(A) and the view taken by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the appeal be, therefore, dismissed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Liberty India (supra); Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 208; Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 218; T.S. Balaram Vs. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, (1971) 2 SCC 526; judgments of this Court in CIT, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Nash Fashions (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 464/2009 along with other connected matter decided on 29....