TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A) is not correct. 3. Ground That no amount was payable at the end of the accounting period, therefore, the addition sustain by the is illegal and against the law. 4. Ground That the amount of TDS was paid later on as such should have allowed in the year in which the amount was paid, evidence thereof was before the CIT(A) and lower deduction certificate was admitted by the AO in the order. 5. Ground That the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustain by CIT(A) u/s 801B is illegal and against the law. 6. Ground Without prejudice the matter of allowability of section 801B of the Income Tax Act is pending before The Honorable Supreme Court/High Court therefore the decision as pronounce may kindly be applied in the year under consideration. 7. Ground That the AO and CIT(A) should not have restricted the claim to Rs. 473840.00, because the claim was in accordance with the law. 8. Ground That the CIT (A) should have allowed the deduction u/s 80LB of the IT Act as claimed in the return of income. 9. Ground That the charging of the interest is illegal and against the law." 3. None appeared on behalf of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es issued under the faceless appeal system. The last notice was issued on 21.05.21. No further opportunity is deemed necessary. The grounds of appeal are decided hereinafter. 4.1 Grounds of appeal no. 1: this is a general ground of appeal and is not required to be adjudicated separately. 4.2 Ground of Appeal No. 2 & 3: These grounds of appeal assail the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act (wrongly mentioned by the assessee as section 48(a)(ia) of the Act). The assessee had claimed deduction for exhibition expenses of INR 1,74,509/-. These expenses were paid to M/s Export Promotion Council for Handicraft. As per the relevant TDS certificate, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @0.01% on these payments. The AO noted that the assessee has not deducted TDS and therefore, the expense was not allowable as a deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4.2.1 In the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not disputed the above facts but has claimed that M/s Export Promotion Council for Handicraft 'must have paid tax' on this amount. This argument of the assessee is self-serving and is not backed by any evidence. Hence this argument of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC), the Duty Drawback and/or DEPB do not form part of the net profit of eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction under section 80IB and hence the AO reduced the claim of deduction u/s 80IB to INR 4,73,840/- only. In the written submissions the assessee has simply stated that the matter is sub judice in its case in earlier years. 5.1 The above facts have been carefully considered. It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is directly on the issue in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that, "Analyzing the concept of remission of duty drawback and DEPB, we are satisfied that the remission of duty is on account of the statutory/policy provisions in the Customs Act/Scheme(s) framed by the Government of India. In the circumstances, we hold that profits derived by way of such incentives do not fall within the expression "profits derived from industrial undertaking" in section 80-IB. In para 24 of the Supreme Court's Order, it was concluded that, "In the circumstances, we hold that duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefits do not for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....below:- "Today, during the course of hearing on the 26th of September, I have argue the appeal. I am sending this written argument as directed by the honorable member. The argument in this regard was done in virtual hearing on September 26, according to the order of the bench, I am sending this written argument with attachment. During the year three issues are there: 1. Disallowances charges u/s. 40(a) (ia), 2. Disallowance of deduction 80IB 3. Charging of Interest Disallowances charges u/s. 40(a) (ia), The first issue is in respect of disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 174509.00 u/s. 40(a) (ia), on account of Exhibition charges on account of the reason that tax has not been deducted. Regarding Exhibition charges u/s, 40(a) (ia), I am producing Balance Sheet of the assessee for the year under consideration for your kind perusal. From the perusal of the same, you will observe that there is no payable TDS or amount of expenses at the end of the financial year. Therefore, the provision of Section 40(a) (ia) of I.T. Act is not applicable. Therefore the addition is illegal and against the law. Furthermore fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of the above facts and consideration, you will observe that the assessee is entitled for claiming expenses in the year in which tax was deducted at source and paid on 09.07. 2016. The date of payment of TDS is 09.07.2016 which pertains to assessment year 2017-18. The evidence is being attached you are therefore requested that necessary direction may kindly be issued to allow the deduction in the year of deduction of tax. The Income Tax Officer himself accepted that the certificate of LOWER DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS ALLOWED. THIS FACT WAS ADMITTED BY THE AO. I AM ATTACHING A COPY OF CHALLAN, A COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, A COPY OF CHALLAN, AND PROOF OF E-PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF 0.01 AMOUNTS TO RUPEES 20 DEPOSITED ON 09.07.2016. THIS WAS ALSO ATTACHED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A)-III, JAIPUR DATED 04.03.2020. You are requested to direct to allow the expenses in the year of payment of TDS. Disallowance of deduction 80IB As far as the exemption of 80IB is concerned, it is submitted that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court which was decided by the ITAT against the assessee and has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant to A.Y 2017-18 but no evidence for the same has been given at any stage of the proceedings. Ground No. 2 Regarding Disallowance of Duty Drawback Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT 317 ITR 218(SC), Duty Drawback do not form part of the net profit of eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of Deduction u/s 801B and hence the same was restricted to Rs 473840/- by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A). In addition, the jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan has also taken the same view. In the case of CIT vs Garment Crafts (2016) 68 Taxmann.com 222(Raj) the HC has reiterated that Duty Drawback and DEPB are not eligible for deduction u/s 801B of the Act. Considering the above discussion, it is humbly requested that both the grounds of appeal may be dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) maybe upheld" The ld. DR has also submitted following decision for support the contentions so raised:- • Liberty India vs. CIT *\(2009) 183 taxman 349 (SC). • CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 133 ( Gujarat H.C.). • CIT vs. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 33 ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Room No. 245A, North Block, New Delhi-110011. Reg: M/s Saraf Esport Palace, Sardarshahar. PAN: ABMFS0322G Period: A.V. 2013-14 APPEAL NO 416/JPR/2016-17. Sub: Direction for disposal of rectification application Sir, I want to draw your kind attention that I have preferred an appeal since long hack before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3rd) Jaipur vide application dated 02.11.2020. The appeal is question was decided vide ordered 21.08.2018. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) while deciding the appeal not decided 3 grounds for which I am regularly requesting the Commissioner by one reason or the other same have not so far been decided. We have submited more than one dosen application to CIT (A) the Chief Commissioner Faceless, New Delhi was also requested vided letter dated 20.05.2022 with a copy to ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur. The Hon'ble Tribunal before whom appeal is now pending is also not liberal in granting the adjournment on the ground. In case the ITAT decide the appeal the assessee shall be deprived from his right. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi." 8.2 On 18.01.2023 the assessee claimed that the appeal of the assessee was fixed on 15.11.2022 and stated that why the same is not decided. On 15.11.2022 bench adjourned the case on 18.1.2023, on that date the ld. DR given copy of the submission and email received stating that the appeal be decided based on the written submission filed. The same were informed to ld. DR, and the matter was adjourned to 08.02.2023. On 08.02.2023 ld. DR seek time to file written submission matter adjourned to 14.02.2023. On 14.02.20233 the ld. DR also filed the written submission and since the ld. AR of the assessee already informed that the matter be decided based on the written submission already filed. Taking into consideration all these facts this appeal of the assessee decided based on the written submission filed by both the party. 8.3 We have persuaded the written submission, orders of the lower authorities and legal decision relied upon by both the parties to drive home their contentions. The bench noted that the assessee time and again contended that the matter was argued by him on 26.09.2022 but the same as it evident the assessee seek....