COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-II vs. MANOJ B MANSUKHANI

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/657/2011HC GujaratGJHC24025368201126 July 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT did not commit any error in allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10A was based on its appreciation of facts and material presented. The Tribunal found that the assessee, as an owner of a food processing unit in Kandla SEZ, was selling processed goods, which constituted a final product, and was therefore a deemed exporter. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided evidence of direct physical exports, earnings in foreign exchange, and that all necessary conditions for claiming exemption under Section 10A were met. The Court found that the Tribunal's finding was essentially factual in nature and no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated February 23, 2010, concerning Assessment Year 2006-2007. The assessee, Manoj B Mansukhani, owned a food processing unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone (SEZ). The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 6,94,544/- under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer denied this deduction, stating that there was no export of goods. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the denial. The ITAT, however, allowed the deduction, considering the assessee to be a deemed exporter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs. 6,94,544/- under Section 10A of the Act, ignoring that the assessee does not satisfy the conditions prescribed for allowance of deduction under the said section? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that it was a unit established in the SEZ, processing goods and selling them as a final product. It contended that it was a deemed exporter and fulfilled the necessary conditions for the deduction. The assessee also submitted documents, including bank advice and bills, to prove earnings in foreign currency and that goods were processed at the SEZ and exported. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions prescribed for allowance of deduction under Section 10A, specifically that there was no export of goods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
TAXAP/657/2011 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 657 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-II - Appellant(s) Versus MANOJ B MANSUKHANI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 26/07/2012

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA) This appeal by the Revenue arises out of common order dated

TAXAP/657/2011 2/5 JUDGMENT 23.02.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in four different appeals of the Department as well as cross appeal of the assessee and corresponds to decision in Tax Appeal No. 883 of 2003 in respect of Assessment Year 2006-2007.

1.

1 The following question is raised by the appellant as substantial question of law. 'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs. 6,94,544/- u/s 10A of the Act ignoring that the assessee does not satisfy the conditions prescribed for allowance of deduction under the said section?”

2.

We heard learned advocate Ms. Mona Bhatt for the appellant.

3.

The assessee was an owner of food processing unit at Kandla Special Economic Zone. It filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 declaring his income. In that the assessee claimed deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for sake of brevity) for Rs. 6,94,544/-. By the order dated 29/12/2008, the Assessing Officer declined the claim for deduction taking view that there was no export of goods, which was a necessary condition for claiming a benefit under section 10A.

3.

1 The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of TAXAP/657/2011 3/5 JUDGMENT Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) considered the explanation of the assessee that it was not engaged in any service industry but was a unit established in the Special Economic Zone and was selling the goods after processing them. According to the assessee, he was a deemed exporter and that he fulfilled requisite conditions to get the deduction. The CIT(A) however, held against the assessee and confirmed the denial of exemption as per his order dated 27.01.2010.

3.

2 The assessee went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal took a view that as the assessee, who was an owner of food processing unit at Kandla Special Economic zone and was selling the goods after processing the same, which was a final product, was deemed to be the exporter. The Tribunal held that he was entitled to benefit of deduction under section 10A of the Act.

3.

3 The Tribunal observed inter-alia as under : “The section 10A also includes production of things;

therefore the activity of the assessee is eligible as production as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The another issue raised by the AO is that the assessee is not earning foreign currency, the assessee has furnished various documents and papers to prove that the earnings are in foreign currency, the assessee has submitted the bank advice in which the amount are received and credited in foreign currency, the copy of bills are also raised to various parties in foreign currency, in the shipping bill the name of the assessee has been mentioned as processor. All evidences clearly prove that the goods are processed at SEZ and the same is exported outside India and the assessee has earned the receipt in foreign currency”

TAXAP/657/2011 4/5 JUDGMENT

3.

4 The Tribunal came to a conclusion that the assessee had executed direct physical exports, the income was earned in the foreign exchange, and that necessary conditions for claiming exemption under section 10A were met with.

4.

The conclusion reached by the Tribunal about eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 10A was based on consideration of the facts and material presented before it. The Tribunal considered the relevant material and found that the goods were produced at the Special Economic Zone, and that they were exported. Essentially the finding was in the realm of appreciation and factual in nature.

5.

No error was committed by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal of the assessee. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances. Therefore, this appeal deserves a dismissal.

6.

It is pertinent to mention that we have dismissed Department's Appeal TA No. 659 of 2011 by our order of even date involving identical question in relation to Assessment Year 2005- 2006. It also deserves to be mentioned that in respect of earlier assessment year 2004-2005, the very issue was decided in favour of the assessee by a division bench of this Court rejecting the department’s appeal being Tax Appeal No. 941/2010. TAXAP/657/2011 5/5 JUDGMENT

7.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. [V.M.SAHAI, J.] [N.V.ANJARIA, J.] cmjoshi

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →