Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Shakri Impex, Sangrur vs Assessee on 10 September, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH 'B' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 610/CHD/2011
Assessment Year : 2006-07
M/s Shakti Impex, Vs The Income Tax Officer,
Jagera Road, Ward IV(4),
Ahmedgarh, Maler kotla.
Sangrur.
PAN : AAVFS0301B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Ashwani Kumar
Respondent by : Shri Amarveer Singh
Date of Hearing : 26.08.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2014
O R D E R
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax II, Ludhiana dated 2 5 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 1 r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 a g a i n s t t h e o r d e r passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. That order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. C1T-11, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as the assessment framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot be said to be erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
2. That the Ld. CIT-II was not justified to arbitrarily enhance the income by disallowing deduction u/s 80-IC on the amount of interest, Duty Draw Back, receipt under "Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna" and miscellaneous income.2
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) issued show cause notice to the assessee under section 263 of the Act which reads as under :
"Without prejudice to the above, the Assessing Officer erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IC on interest of Rs. 3192/-, duty draw back received Rs. 4,18,306 and Rs.23,27,306/-, miscellaneous income of Rs. 1,193/- and processing charges of Rs. 17,85,667/- which are not incomes derived by the undertaking from any business referred to in sub-section (2) of 80IC. Thus these profits are not eligible for deduction under section 80IC. The A.O has also failed to follow the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V Sterling Foods 237ITR 579 and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana HC in Liberty India V Commissioner of income Tax 293 ITR 520. The Assessing Officer has passed the order in a perfunctory manner and without application of mind. In view of these facts I have reason to believe that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in allowing deduction u/s 8OIC on these incomes.
Therefore I have reasons to believe that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, on the grounds stated above.
You are given opportunity of being heard and show cause why the impugned order be not enhanced/modified/cancelled or set aside for fresh assessment under section 263 of the Act in this office on 25.06.2009 at 11AM.
4. I n r e p l y, t h e a s s e s s e e s u b m i t t e d t h a t i t w a s f u l l y q u a l i f i e d for claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act and the assessment order originally passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
However, the Commissioner of Income Tax in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 (S.C) held that the assessee was not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on the amount received under the Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna. It was further observed by the Commissioner of Income Tax that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Libert y India has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported at 317 ITR 218 (S.C).3
5. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax.
6. The ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that there is no merit in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax because at the time of issue of show cause notice, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Libert y India Vs CIT (supra) was not available and as such the said ratio could not be applied for holding the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Reliance in this regard was placed on the ratio laid down in CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (S.C).
7. The ld. DR for the revenue pointed out that the issue stands covered by the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (S.C.) and the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in Libert y India Vs CIT (supra).
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
The issue arising in the present appeal is against the invoking of jurisdiction b y the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act. The original assessment in the case was completed under section 143(3) of the Act under which the assessee was allowed deduction under section 80IC of the Act on the manufacturing activities carried on by the assessee and further even on the receipts of Rs. 23,27,306/- received under the account Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna. The contention of the assessee was that the said receipts form part of the profits of the business on which assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IC of 4 the t Act whereas the Commissioner of Income Tax, in view of the ratio laid down b y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Sterling foods 237 ITR 579 and b y the jurisdictional High Court in Libert y India Vs CIT 293 ITR 520 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 317 ITR 218 (S.C.) held that the assessee was not entitled to the said deduction under section 80IC of the Act on the amount received under the Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna.
9. We find that similar issue of invoking of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act arose in the case of Little Bee Impex Vs DCIT. The Tribunal in ITA No.153/Chd/2013 relating to a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 2 8 . 0 8 . 2 0 1 4 i n t h e c a s e of the said concern which was engaged in the similar line of business as the assessee before us i.e. production of honey and had also received the amount under the Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna had held that the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act was valid in holding that the said receipts received by the assessee were not eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The said ratio of holding the receipts to be not eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act has been applied by the Tribunal in assessee's o w n c a s e i n I T A N o . 1 5 3 / C h d / 2 9 1 3 r e l a t i n g t o a s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2009-10 in turn following the ratio laid down in M/s Little Bee Impex Vs ACIT and vide order dated 28.08.2014 it was held as under :
" 5 . We h a v e h e a r d t h e r i v a l c o nt e n t i on s a n d p e r u s e d t h e record. The assessee during the year under consideration was e n g a g e d i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g a n d e x p o r t of h o n e y , t r a d i n g o f z i n c a n d m u s t a r d o i l . D u r i n g t h e co u r s e of as s e s s m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r n o t ed t h a t t h e a s s e s s e e h a d 5 d e c l a r e d r e c e i p t of R s . 2 5 , 88 , 0 3 2/ - o n a c c o u n t o f D u t y Dr a w B a c k a n d u n d e r t h e h e a d V i s h e s h K r i s h i U p a j Y oj n a a t R s . 1 . 2 0 C r o r e s . T h e As s e s s i n g O f f i c e r n o t e d t h a t s i m i l a r r e c e i pt o f D u t y D r aw B a ck a n d V i s h e s h K r i s h i U p a j Y o j n a w e r e r e c e i v e d i n t h e e a r l i e r y e a r a n d d ed u c t i o n c l ai m e d un d e r s e c t i o n 8 0 I C o f t h e A c t w a s w i t h d r aw n b y p a s s i n g o r d e r und e r s e c t i o n 2 6 3 of t h e I n c o m e T a x A c t . T h e a s s e s s e e w a s s h o w c a u s e d t o e x p l a i n w h y d e d u c t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 8 0 I C of t h e A c t s h o u l d n ot b e w i t hd r a w n o n t h e s a i d r e c e i p t s . I n r e p l y , t h e a s s e s s e e c l a i m e d t ha t t h e s ai d i n c e n t i v e s w e r e r e c e i v e d a f t e r process of honey and were issued by the Government of India a n d t h e S t at e G o v e r n m e n t t o p r o m ot e t h e e x p o r t o f I nd i a n g o o d s / ar t i cl e s . T he a s s e s s e e , t h u s s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e s a i d d e d u c t i o n u n d e r s ec t i o n 8 0 I C o f t h e Ac t w a s a l l ow a b l e t o t h e assessee. However, the Assessing Officer in view of various d e c i s i o n s of t h e A p e x C o u r t h e l d t hat t h e a s s e s s e e w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e d e du c t i o n c l a i m e d u nde r s e c t i o n 80 I C of t h e A c t a n d t h e i n c o me i n t h e h a n d s o f t h e a s s e s s e e w a s t h u s , recomputed.
6. The Commissioner of Income T a x (A p p e a l s ) u p h e l d t h e addition made by the Assessing Of f i c e r i n v i e w of t h e j u d g e m e n t of t h e Ho n ' bl e S u p r e m e C ou r t i n C I T Vs S t e r l i n g F o o d s L t d . 2 37 I T R 5 7 9 (S . C ) a n d L i be r t y I n d i a V s C I T 3 1 7 I T R 2 1 8 (S . C ).
7. O n t h e p e r u s al o f t h e r e c o r d , w e f i n d t h a t s i m i l a r i s s u e o f a l l o w a bi l i t y o f de d u c t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 8 0 I C of t h e A c t o n t h e r e c e i p t s f r o m Vi s h e s h K r i s hi U p a j Y o j n a a r o s e b e f or e t h e T r i b un a l i n t h e c a s e o f M / s L i t t l e B e e I m p e x V s D C I T (s u p r a ) w h e r e i n v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 0 3 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 4 , t h e T r i b u n al h e l d a s under :
"50. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee during the year under consideration had received incentives from Ministry of Commerce, Government of India under 'Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna' @ 5% of FOB value of exports. During the year under consideration the assessee has booked incentives for the financial year 2005-06 and 2004-05 on accrual basis. The details of the incentives accrued/received were filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings as is apparent from the letter dated 28.11.2008 placed at pages 65 to 72 of the Paper Book to which the details were annexed as Annexure-I. The said licences are granted by the DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and is equivalent to 5% of FOB value of the exports made by the assessee, which in turn is calculated on the basis of shipping bills/BRCs filed with DGFT. The value of licences worked to Rs.2.23 crores on export sales of Rs.46.46 crores for financial year 2005-06 and Rs.76.33 lacs on export sales of 16.17 crores relating to financial year 2004-05. The said licences were sold by the assessee during the year under consideration for Rs.2.16 crores and Rs.61 lacs respectively totaling Rs.2.78 crores. Further amount of Rs.30 lacs was provided on estimate basis for 6 pending licenses and the income of Rs.2.80 crores was shown in the books of account on the basis of actual sale price of the licences/provision. The deduction under section 10B of the Act on the same had been claimed at Rs.2,57,88,457/-. In the first instance where the queries had been raised by the Assessing Officer, which in turn had been replied to by the assessee and the issue having been considered by the Assessing Officer and one possible view of allowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act having been passed, the issue arises, whether the same is open to revision under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Courts have held that the Commissioner of Income Tax by way of the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act is not empowered to substitute one view adopted by the Assessing Officer by another view in this regard. In view thereof, the order of revision order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax is without jurisdiction or not is to be seen in line with the allowability of the said claim in the hands of the assessee.
51. Under the said section 10B of the Act it is provided that deduction of such profits and gains as are derived by a hundred per cent exports oriented undertaking from the export of articles or things from the year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture the articles or things, deduction is to be allowed on the total income of the assessee. The assessee is admittedly engaged into hundred per cent exports and is a hundred per cent EOU unit. We have already held the assessee to be entitled to the claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act in the above said paras. Now the only issue to be seen is whether the receipts as such i.e. the incentives received under 'Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna', which in turn is determined @ 5% and the FOB value of the export sales made by the assessee, is derived from the undertaking. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax and the learned D.R. for the Revenue have placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (supra) to hold that the assessee is not entitled to the said deduction.
52. The perusal of the said decision reflects that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (supra) was the claim of deduction u/ss 80I/80IA and 80IB of the Act which also provides for deduction with reference to the profits derived from eligible business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (Supra) observed as under :
"The Income-tax Act, 1961, broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, viz., investment-linked incentives and profit-linked incentives. Chapter VI-A 7 of the Act which provides for incentives in the form of deductions essentially belongs to the category of "profit-linked incentives". Therefore, when section 80-IA/80-IB refers to profits derived from eligible business, it is not the ownership of that business which attracts the incentives: what attracts the incentives under section 80-IA/80IB is the generation of profits (operational profits). It is for this reason that Parliament has confined deduction of profits derived from eligible business mentioned in sub- sections (3) to (11A). Each of the businesses mentioned in sub-sections (3) to (11A) constitutes a stand-alone item in the matter of computation of profits.
Sections 80-IB and 80-IA are a code by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions.
Section 80-IB provides for the allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the eligible business. The connotation of the words "derived from" is narrower as compared to that of the words "attributable to". By using the expression "derived from" Parliament intended to cover sources not beyond the first degree.
Sections 80-I, 80-IA and 80-IB provide for incentives in the form of deductions which are linked to profits and not investment. On analysis of sections 880-IA and 80-Ib it becomes clear that any industrial undertaking which becomes eligible on satisfying sub- section (2) would be entitled to deduction under sub- section (1) only to the extent of profits derived from such industrial undertaking after the specified date. Apart from eligibility, sub-section (1) purports to restrict the quantum of deduction to a specified percentage of the profits. This is the importance of the words "derived from an industrial undertaking" as against "profits attributable to an industrial undertaking".
53. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as under:
"The word "derived from" are narrower in connotation as compared to the words "attributable to". In other words, by using the expression "derived from", Parliament intended to cover sources not beyond the first degree."
On an analysis of sections 80-IA and 80-IB it becomes clear that any industrial undertaking, which becomes eligible on satisfying sub-section (2) would be entitled to deduction under sub-section (1) only to the extent of profits derived from such industrial undertaking 8 after specified date(s). Hence, apart from eligibility, sub-section (1) purports to restrict the quantum of deduction to a specified percentage of profits. This is the importance of the words "derived from industrial undertaking" as against "profits attributable to industrial undertaking".
54. The Apex Hon'ble Court thus held as under:
"DEPB is an incentive. It is given under the Duty Exemption Remission Scheme. Essentially, it is an export incentive. No doubt, the object behind DEPB is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of export product. This neutralization is provided for by credit to customs duty against export product. Under DEPB, an exporter may apply for credit as a percentage of the FOB value of exports made in freely convertible currency. Credit is available only against the export product and at rates specified by the DGFT for import of raw materials, components, etc., DEPB credit under the Scheme has to be calculated by taking into account the deemed import content of the export product as per basic customs duty and special additional duty payable on such deemed imports. Therefore, in our view, DEPB/Duty drawback are incentives which flow from the schemes framed by Central Government or from section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, hence, incentives profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under section 80-IB. They belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings."
55. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (supra) the issue to be considered is whether the incentives receipts under the 'Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna' are the receipts on first degree and entitled to the claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. While denying the benefit of deduction u/ss 80I/80IA and 80IB of the Act on DEPB receipts, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT(supra) that the object behind DEPB is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of export product, which was provided for by way of credit to customs duty against export product. The exporter was entitled to apply for credit as a percentage of the FOB value of export under the incentive scheme of grant of DEPB. The said credit was available at rates specified by the DGFT for import of raw material/components etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that DEPB/Duty Drawback were incentives which flow from the schemes framed by Central Government.
956. In the present case before us the copy of the scheme of 'Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna' is placed at pages 20 and 21 of the Paper Book. The objective of the said scheme was to promote the exports of Agricultural Produce and their value added products, Minor Forest Produce, Gram Udyog Products, Forest Based Products and other products which may be notified from time to time. The entitlement to the scheme as per clause 3.13.2 is as under:
"3.13.2 Duty Credit Scrip benefits as granted with an aim to compensate high transport costs and to offset other disadvantages.
Exporters of products notified in
Appendix 37A of HBPvl, shall be
entitled for Duty Credit Scrip
equivalent to 5% of FOB value of
exports (in free foreign exchange) for
exports made from 27.8.2009
onwards."
57. Under clause 3.13.3 it is provided that
Duty Credit Scrip benefits under the scheme would
be granted only at the reduced rate of 3% of FOB
value of exports in cases where exporter has
availed the benefit of:
(i) Drawback at rates higher than
1% and/or
(ii) Specific DEPB rate (i.e. other
than Miscellaneous Category -
Sr.Nos.22C & 22D of Product
Group 90%); and/or
(iii) Advance Authorization or Duty
Free Import Authorization
Import of inputs (other than
catalyst, consumable and
packing materials)for the
exported product for which
Duty Credit Scrip under
VKGUY is being claimed."
58. Further benefits are also given under the scheme, but the relevant benefits of the scheme vis-à- vis assessee are as referred to by us in the above para. In view of the scheme under which the assessee is entitled to the incentives which in turn are to compensate high transport cost and to offset other advantages to the exporters, and also in view of the fact that the incentives are to be allowed at reduced rates where the assessee is in receipt of Duty Drawback, DEPB, we are of the view that the incentives received by the assessee under the 'Vishesh 10 Krishi Upaj Yojna' as an export incentive were given to the assessee to neutralize the incidence of high transport cost and also to offset other disadvantages. The said neutralization as in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Liberty India Vs. CIT (supra) is linked to the FOB value of exports by way of Duty Credit Scrip. The said benefits are provided by DGFT in the case of the assessee and the said scheme being similar to the scheme of grant of Duty Drawback/DEPB and in turn applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (supra) we hold that the assessee is not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act on the said incentives.
In view thereof, we uphold the order of enhancement passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The ground No.5 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed."
8. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e a s s e s s e e m o v e d a M i s c e l l a n e ou s A p p l i c a t i o n a g ai n s t t h e o r d e r o f t h e T r i b u n a l a n d t h e T r i b un a l i n c o n s o l i d at e d o r de r i n M A N o s . 3 t o 6 / C h d/ 2 0 1 4 r e l a t i ng t o a s s e s s m e n t y e a r s 2 0 0 6 - 7 t o 2 0 0 9- 1 0 v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 1 9 . 0 6 . 2 0 14 h e l d a s u n d e r :
" 5. We hav e hear d t he r i val cont ent i o ns and per us ed t he r ecor d . T he as s es s ee i n IT A N o. N o. 553/ C hd/ 2011 had r ai s ed t he i s s ue of cl ai m of deduct i on under s ec t i on 10B of t he Act vi s -à-vi s t he pr of i t s on s al e of i ncent i ves r ecei ve d under t he s cheme Vi s hes h K r i s hi Upaj Y oj na @ 5% of FOB val ue of e xpor t s , r ecei v ed f r om Mi ni s t r y of C ommer ce, Govt . of Indi a. T he T r i bunal vi de par as 47 t o 59 at pages 40 t o 48 had cons i der ed t he pl ea of t he as s es s ee and t he s cheme under w hi ch i ncent i ves w er e r e cei ved and al s o t he r at i o l ai d dow n by t he Hon' ble Supr eme C our t i n L i ber t y Indi a V C IT (s upr a ). Af t er hol di ng t hat t he as s es s ee w as ent i t l ed t o cl ai m of deduct i on under s ect i on 10B of t he Act on i t s pr of i t s f r om bus i nes s , t h e ot her i s s ue cons i der ed by t h e T r i bunal w as w het her t he i ncent i ves r ec ei ved under Vi s hes h K r i s hi Upaj Y oj na w er e der i ved f r om t he under t aki ng an d w er e t hus , el i gi bl e f or deduct i on under s ect i on 10 B of t he Act . T he T r i bunal vi de par as 56 and 57 c ons i der ed t he s cheme und er w hi c h t he as s es s ee had r ecei v ed t he i ncent i ves and i t h as been h el d t hat t he i ncent i v es r ecei v ed by t he as s e s s ee under t he s ai d s cheme w er e gi ven t o t he as s es s ee t o neut r al i z e t he i nci dence of hi gh t r ans por t cos t and al s o t o of f s et ot her di s advant age. T he T r i bunal f ur t her hel d t hat " T he s ai d neut r al i z at i on as i n t he cas e of Hon' bl e Supr eme C our t i n t he cas e L i ber t y I ndi a Vs . C IT (s upr a ) i s l i nked t o t he FOB val ue of ex por t s by w ay of Dut y C r edi t Scr ip. T he s ai d benef i t s ar e pr ovi ded by DGFT i n t he ca s e of t he as s es s ee and t he s ai d s cheme bei ng s i mi l ar t o t he s cheme of gr ant of Dut y 11 Dr aw back/ DEPB and i n t ur n appl yi ng the r at i o l ai d dow n by t he Hon' bl e Supr eme C our t i n t he cas e of L i ber t y Indi a Vs . C IT (s upr a ) w e h ol d t hat t he as s es s ee i s not ent i t l ed t o t he cl ai m of deduct i on under s ect i on 10B o f t he Act on t he s ai d i ncent i ves ."
6. In vi ew of t he s ai d f i ndi ngs , w e f i nd no mer i t i n t he s t and of t he as s es s ee t hat t he Spe ci al Bench of T r i bunal i n Mar al Over s eas Vs Addl . C IT (s upr a ) and Mumbai Bench of T r i bunal i n Art s & C r af t s Expor t s V IT O (s upr a) had al l ow ed s i mi l ar benef i t of exempt i on under s e c t i on 10B of t he Act i n r es pect of expor t benef i t s . T he s ai d deci s i ons w er e r ef er r ed t o by t he l d. AR f or t he as s es s e e dur i ng t he cour s e of ar gui ng t he appeal . How ever , s i nce t he i s s ue w as s quar el y cover ed by t he r at i o l ai d dow n by t he Hon' bl e Supr eme C o ur t and t he s che me bei ng s i mi l ar as t o t he s ch eme co ns i der ed by t he Hon ' bl e Supr eme C our t i n L i ber t y Indi a V C IT (s upr a ) an d f ur t her t he s cheme cons i der ed by t he di f f er ent benches of T r i bunal bei ng at var i ance, no f aul t can be f ound w i t h t he or der of t he T r i bunal and w e f i nd no mer i t i n t he pr es ent Mi s c el l aneous Appl i cat i on moved b y t he as s es s ee i n t hi s r egar d and the s ame i s di s mi s s ed.
9. T h e i s s u e r ai s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t a p p e a l i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i s s u e b e f or e t h e T r i b u n al a n d f o l l o w i n g t h e s a m e p ar i t y o f r e a s o n i n g as i n M / s L i t t l e B e e I m p e x , w e h o l d t ha t a s s e s s e e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e d e d u c t i o n u n d e r s e ct i o n 8 0 I C o f t h e A c t o n r e c e i p t s f r o m V i s h e s h K r i s h i U p a j Y oj na .
10. A n o t h e r i s s u e r ai s ed b y t h e a s s e s s e e i s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e c l a i m o f d e d u c t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 80 I C o f t h e A c t o n D u t y D r a w B a c k . T h e s a i d i s s u e i s s q u ar e l y c o v e r e d b y t h e r a t i o l a i d d o w n b y t h e H o n ' bl e S u p r e m e C o ur t i n L i b e r t y I n d i a L t d. V s C I T (s u p r a ) w h e r e i n i t i s h e l d t ha t t h e a s s es s e e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n y d e du c t i o n u n d e r s e c t i on 8 0 I C o n D u t y D r a w B a c k . T h e r e c e i p t s b e i n g s i mi l a r a n d t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e ct i o n 8 0 I A a n d 8 0 I C b e i ng p e r i m a t e r i a , w e ho l d t h at t h e a s s e s s e e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e c l a i m o f d e d u ct i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 8 0 I C o n D u t y D r a w Ba c k . R e j e c t i n g t h e p l ea o f t h e a s s e s s e e , w e d i s m i s s t h e gr o u n d o f a p p e al r a i s e d b y t h e a s s e s s e e .
10. The issue raised before us is identical to the issue before Tribunal in assessee's own case and same parity of reasoning is to be applied. Now coming to the contention of the ld. AR for the assessee and the reliance on the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (S.C), we find no merit in the plea of the assessee as on the date when the 12 Commissioner of Income Tax had issued the show cause notice, under section 263 of the Act, the ratio was settled by the jurisdictional High Court in Liberty India Vs CIT (supra) which was binding on the assessee and the claim made by the assessee was contrary to the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court was open for revision under section 263 of the Act. In view thereof, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Act in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the claim of deduction u/s80IC of the Act on the receipts received under the scheme Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed.
11. In t h e r e s u l t , a p p e a l o f t h e a s s e s s e e i s di s m i s s e d .
O r d e r p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e o p e n C o u r t o n 1 0 t h S e p t e m b e r , 2 0 14 .
Sd/- Sd/-
( T. R . S O O D ) ( S US H M A C H O W L A )
A C C O U N TA N T ME M B E R JUDICIAL MEMBER
D a t e d : . 1 0 t h S e pt e m b e r , 2 0 1 4
'Poonam'
Copy to:
T h e A p p e l l a n t , T h e R e s p o n d e n t , T h e C IT ( A ) , T h e C IT , D R Assistant Registrar ITAT/CHD