ANUP N. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1), MUMBAI

The assessee is aggrieved by computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act made by learned CIT(A).

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee stated that the assessee is exporter of stainless steel utensils and cutlery items. It exports both goods purchased by it from outsiders and also goods manufactured by it, i.e., the assessee is exporting both trading goods manufactured goods. In this regard, he invited our attention to page No. 35 of the paper book, wherein a copy of profit and loss account is placed. Learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) has erroneously taken a view that the assessee has exported only manufactured goods during the year under consideration. Accordingly he has computed the deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. The Ld A.R submitted that 2 Mr. Anup N. Shah the method of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC differs between pure manufacturer exporter and the assessees’ doing export of both trading goods and manufactured goods. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on wrong appreciation of the facts available on record. He submitted that the method followed by Ld CIT(A) has resulted in deduction of lesser amount, where as the assessee is entitled for deduction of a higher amount. Accordingly, learned AR prayed that the deduction allowable to the assessee u/s. 80HHC of the Act may be worked out correctly.

On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for reconsideration of the issue.

Having heard the contentions, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the learned CIT(A), since the first appellate authority has committed an error in appreciating the facts available on record. From the Profit and Loss account, we notice that the assessee is exporting both trading goods and manufactured goods. Hence, in our view, the Ld CIT(A) was not correct in observing that the assessee is only exporting manufactured items. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore the said issue to his file for fresh examination of the same by considering the facts in a proper perspective.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.