Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It was submitted by the Ld.DR of the revenue that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80HHC for the reason that there was huge difference of Rs.615.87 lakh in the indirect cost as claimed by the assessee in the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC at Rs.723.88 lakh as against indirect cost of Rs.1339.75 as per the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that all other contentions regarding decrease in direct cost to the extent of Rs.193.41 lakh and increase in total turnover etc. were never made before the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not confronted the same with the Assessing Officer by obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer and hence, the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the factual aspect regarding these two claims of the assessee for decrease in direct cost to the extent of Rs.19341694 and also regarding increase in total turnover to Rs.10459.40 lakh as adopted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as against Rs.9014.83 lakh as shown by the assessee in form no.10CCAC.

4. As against this, Ld.AR of the assessee supported the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and he had no objection for sending back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding these two claims in connection with decrease in direct cost and increase in total turnover.

5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has decided the issue as per law after examining all aspects of the matter, but we feel that the claim of the assessee regarding reduction in direct cost by an amount of Rs.19341694 on account of selling expenditure I.T.A. No.3721/Del./2008 which was included in the indirect cost by the Assessing Officer whereas as per the assessee, the same was included by the assessee in direct cost, we feel that the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to factually verify this aspect. Regarding the amount of total turnover also, we feel that the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to factually verify this aspect and then work out deduction allowable to the assessee u/s 80HHC as has been done by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the quantum of direct cost and total turnover. If the assessee can establish that an amount of Rs.19341694 which has been added by the Assessing Officer in the indirect cost was included by the assessee in direct cost, the same should be reduced from direct cost because the same cannot be added in both. The Assessing Officer should also verify the correctness of the amount of total turnover adopted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at Rs.10459.40 lakh and thereafter he should work out and compute the deduction allowable to the assessee u/s 80HHC. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer should provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee .