NAHAR SPINNING MILLS LTD.LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

ITA/47/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01049982200220 May 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd., is in appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 5.9.2001. The assessment year in question is 1989-90. The Assessing Officer (AO) had allowed deduction under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on profits from manufactured goods exported, including duty drawback received on such goods. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, contending that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The CIT's revisional order, which set aside the AO's relief on duty drawback, was upheld by the Tribunal. The appeal to the High Court challenges the Tribunal's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the appeal by first addressing Question No. 2, concerning the merits of allowing exemption for duty drawback under Section 80-I. The Court noted that the assessee's counsel could not dispute that this question was covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the High Court in the assessee's own case (ITA No.151 of 1999), which held that deduction under Section 80-I was not admissible on export incentives like cash compensatory assistance. Therefore, Question No. 2 was decided against the assessee. Regarding the surviving issue of jurisdiction under Section 263 (Questions 1 and 3), the Court found the assessee's contention to be without merit. The Court reasoned that while the AO had allowed deduction on duty drawback for manufactured goods, the appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority primarily concerned the claim for deduction under Section 80-I on goods purchased from the market and exported. The Tribunal rightly observed that the specific issue of whether deduction under Section 80-I was available on duty drawback for manufactured goods was neither considered nor decided in the appeal. The explanation to Section 251 allows the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider matters arising out of proceedings, and Explanation 1(c) to Section 263(1) clarifies that revision powers extend to matters not considered and decided in appeal. Since the duty drawback issue was not decided in appeal, the CIT had jurisdiction to revise the order. The reliance on the Gujarat High Court's decision was deemed not well-founded as the issue in revision was not the subject matter of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT had jurisdiction to revise an assessment order made by the AO allowing deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in respect of duty drawback received for manufactured goods exported. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in disallowing the exemption in respect of duty drawback while computing tax-free profit under Section 80-I of the Act, considering the decision in Sterling Foods. 3. Whether the assessment order dated 25.8.1992 for AY 1989-90 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, warranting revision under Section 263 of the Act. Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that the CIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment order because the issue of deduction under Section 80-I on duty drawback was already a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Reliance was placed on the explanation to Section 251 and Explanation 1(c) to Section 263(1) of the Act. The assessee also argued that the issue of deduction on incentives as a whole was before the appellate authority and could not be taken up in revision, citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. (Guj.). Revenue's arguments: The revenue defended the revisional order, arguing that the issue before the 1st Appellate Authority was not with regard to deduction under Section 80-I on duty drawback, but rather whether deduction was available on goods purchased from the market and exported. The revenue also relied on a previous decision of the High Court in the assessee's own case (ITA No.151 of 1999) which dealt with export incentives and cash compensatory assistance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80-I,Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 263,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 47 of 2002 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No. 47 of 2002 Date of decision: 20th May, 2020 Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. .. Appellant v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Prasad, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the revenue. ... AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. The assessee is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Following substantial questions of law have been claimed:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT has juri iction to revise an assessment made by the AO allowing the deduction from computation of taxation of profits of the Industrial Undertaking u/s 80-I of the Act in respect of the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80-I

All 128 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →