COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL

ITA/55/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051575200423 March 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of whether the goods were actually exported and whether the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC was genuine were pure questions of fact. The Court found that the impugned order of the Tribunal was supported by ample evidence on record. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that once the goods had left the territorial waters of India, the incidence of export was complete. The non-receipt of goods in the country of destination was not a relevant factor for concluding that the claim under Section 80HHC was bogus. The revenue's counsel did not refer to any legal requirement stipulating that export is only complete upon receipt of goods at the destination. The Court also noted that the revenue's argument amounted to a re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible in an appeal admitted on a substantial question of law, and the Tribunal's findings were not shown to be perverse. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (the revenue) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'B'. The ITAT's order, dated 28.4.2006, pertained to ITA No. 216/Chandi/2005 for the assessment year 1996-97. The dispute centered on the genuineness of the assessee's, M/s L.W.S. Knitwears Limited, Ludhiana, claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on alleged export of hosiery goods. The revenue contended that the goods never reached the destination country, making the claim bogus.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the hosiery goods were actually exported and that the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act was genuine and allowable to the assessee/respondent? Assessee's Arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that the goods never reached the country to which the export was made, and therefore, the Tribunal should have concluded that the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was bogus. The revenue's assertion was based on points raised in para 4 (i) to (vii) of their appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
I.T.A. No.517 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. I.T.A..No.517 of 2006 Date of Decision: 3.4.2007 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana. …Appellant. Versus M/s L.W.S.Knitwears Limited, Ludhiana. …Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the appellant-revenue.

JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh, passed in I.T.A. No.216/Chandi/2005 dated 28.4.2006 in respect of assessment year 1996-97. The revenue has claimed that the following substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the hosiery goods were actually exported and that claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of Income Tax Act was genuine and allowable to the assessee/respondent?”

I.T.A. No.517 of 2006 2

After hearing learned counsel, we find that these are pure ques

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 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →