COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARNAL vs. KAMINI JAIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 87 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 5, 2010 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal ..Appellant Versus Smt. Kamini Jain, Prop. M/s K.T.M. Exports, Panipat ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue, for the appellant-revenue. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), is directed by the revenue, challenging order dated 12.12.2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. No. 308/D/2008, in respect of the Assessment Year 2003-04. The appellant-revenue has claimed the following substantive question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), directing the A.O. to allow deduction

I.T.A. No. 87 of 2010 under Section 80-HHC, on export incentives, received by the assessee, as a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter, treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter and ignoring the provisions of Section 80 HHC(IA) read with Section 80-HHC(3A) read with clause (baa) of explanation to Section 80HHC(4C) of the Act?” The aforesaid question is no longer res integra and has been answered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Janatha Cashew Exporting Co. v. CIT, [2009] 309 ITR 440 (SC). It has been held that if the assessee was a supporting manufacturer then it would be entitled to claim benefits under Section 80HHC on production of a disclaimer certificate and fresh computation of deduction was required in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, in order to qualify for a claim of benefit under Section 80HHC, disclaimer certificate is required and the assessee has to be a supporting manufacturer. It is evident from the record that the assessee has been a supporting manufacturer and has produced a disclaimer certificate from the manufacturer. In para 6 of the order passed by the CIT(A), these facts have been conceded by the revenue. The relevant portion of para 6 reads thus:- “6. Assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of Handloom products, where assessee manufactured the products and supplied to another exporter who finally exported these products, therefore, the assessee is 2

I.T.A. No. 87 of 2010 supporting manufacturer and exporter. The assessee has received a disclaimer certificate from the main exporter for claiming benefit u/s 80HHC. …….” The aforesaid factual as well as legal position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. Accordingly, the question is answered against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 5, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3