C.I.T vs. HUGHES ESCORTS COMMUNICATIONS LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 14.08.2008 . Present: Ms P.L. Bansal, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms Kavita Jha, Advocate for the Respondent. . + ITA No.910/2008 . This appeal pertains to the assessment year 2002-03 and is directed against the order dated 7.12.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3989/Del/2005. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two issues are sought to be raised in this appeal. The first issue pertains to the increase in the revenue liability on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation. This issue stands covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd: 294 ITR 451. . The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the second issue pertains to payment made to the Customs under protest and the deductibility of the same under Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ?the said Act?). She submits that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in rendering the impugned decision on this issue had followed its earlier decision in respect of assessment year 1999-00. An appeal had been preferred against the said order for assessment year 1999-00 being ITA No. 761/107. A copy of the order dated 17.08.2007 passed in that appeal has been placed before us. We find that the issue raised therein is exactly the same as the one sought to be raised here, namely, the claim of deduction under Section 43-B of the said Act on the ground that it was required to make a Special Value Branch (SVB) deposit with the Customs Authorities. This Court after examining the order of the Tribunal impugned in that appeal came to the conclusion that no fault could be found with the view taken by the Tribunal primarily because the liability was required to be discharged by the assessee on the payment and that the assessee had no option but to make the payment. This Court held that such payment clearly fell within Section 43-B (a) of the said Act. As such, this Court found that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal. . For the very same reason, we find that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . RAJIV SHAKDHER, J August 14, 2008 sb .