M/S VEER OVERSEAS LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8125/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01085622201114 August 2012Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions. While the assessee did not contest the re-opening of assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Act, the primary concern was the determination of the deduction under Section 80HHC. Both parties agreed that the quantum of deduction should be decided in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Topman Exports vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and the High Court's decision in M/s. Turbo Impex vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II. The revenue assured that the re-assessment would be framed in accordance with law, considering these precedents. Therefore, the court directed the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment, ensuring compliance with the cited judgments. No specific issue was left undecided; the court facilitated the process for a legally compliant determination of the deduction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Veer Overseas Ltd., is a private limited company and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For assessment year 2003-04, it claimed a deduction of ₹12,79,621 under Section 80HHC of the Act in its return filed under Section 139(1). The assessment was finalized under Section 143(3). Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 for re-assessment was issued, proposing to disallow deductions under Section 80HHC due to the receipt of DEPB credits. The assessee objected to the re-opening of assessment, but the Assessing Officer dismissed these objections on March 24, 2011. The petitioner challenged this dismissal in the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in dismissing the assessee's objections to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act, specifically concerning the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for DEPB credits? Contentions: Assessee: The assessee stated that they were not contesting the challenge to the re-opening under Sections 147/148 of the Act. However, they sought a direction for the Assessing Officer to determine the quantum of deduction under Section 80HHC, taking into account the Supreme Court's judgment in Topman Exports vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and a Division Bench decision of the High Court in M/s. Turbo Impex vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II. Revenue: The revenue's counsel stated that the re-assessment would be framed in accordance with law, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Topman Exports (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP No. 8125 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8125 of 2011 Date of Decision:- August 14, 2012 M/s. Veer Overseas Ltd. ..............PETITIONER(S) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal Circle, Karnal ...........RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present:- Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, and Ms. Naveen Malik, Advocate,

for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose of four writ petitions namely CWP No. 8125, 8134, 8135 and 8161 of 2011, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts in all the cases are identical. The facts have been extracted from CWP No. 8125 of 2011. The petitioner is a private limited company and a regular assessee being assessed under Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'The Act'). For assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had filed its return under Section 139(1) of the Act on 24.09.2003 wherein, deduction under Section 80HHC to the tune of `12,79,621 was claimed. Regular assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 of the Act for re-assessment was issued to the assessee whereupon, the

CWP No. 8125 of 2012 2 assessee sought reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment. The case was reopened for disallowance of deductions under Section 80 HHC of the Act for receipt of DEPB credits. The assessee filed objections to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. The objections were dismissed by the Assessing Officer on 24.03.2011, necessitating the petitioner to impugn the same in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that challenge to the re-opening under Sections 147/148 of the Act is not being contested. However, the Assessing Officer be directed to determine the quantum of deduction under Section 80HHC keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Topman Exports vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, (2012) 3 SCC 593 followed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Turbo Impex vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana (ITA No. 361 of 2011, decided on 20.03.2012). Learned counsel for the respondent states that the re-assessment shall be framed in accordance with law after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Topman Exports (supra). In view of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed of.

(Ajay Kumar Mittal)

Judge 14.08.2012

(G.S. Sandhawalia) shivani

Judge

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →