KISHORE GOKAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद�य राजे�� के अनुसार लेखा सद�य राजे�� के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा सद�य राजे�� के अनुसार लेखा सद�य राजे�� के अनुसार Challenging the order dt.08.08.13 of CIT(A)-23,Mumbai,the Assessee has filed the present appeal. Brief Facts 2.Assessee is an individual,engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of readymade garments.The Assessing Officer(AO) completed the assessment on 30.01. 2004, u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act vide which the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80 HHC,amounting to Rs.90.17 lakhs,was denied.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA),who upheld the order of the AO.Before him,it was argued that Taxation (Law) Amendment Act,2005came in to force from 31.10. 2005,that it made retrospective amendment to include certain items in the scope of section 28 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04. 1998,that he was entitled to claim deduction u/s.80HHC,amounting to Rs. 66.78 lakhs for the AY.1999-2000,that he had filed an application u/s.154 of the Act before the AO for the rectifying the assessment by allowing the claim made by him,that the AO had rejected the application filed by the assessee,that he filed an appeal before the FAA against the rejection of rectification application,that the FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee as it was time barred,that the Tribunal had condoned the delay and had vide its order dated 07.03.2012(ITA/4256/Mum/ 2010)restored the issue to the file of the FAA with a direction to decide the appeal on merit and after hearing the assessee. In pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal the FAA fixed the case and the assessee contended that the retrospective amendment to the provisions of section 80HHC entitled him to claim deduction of Rs.66,78,670/-,that the retrospective amendment was to be given effect.The assessee relied upon the cases of J K Syenthetics(251ITR200),GTC Industries Ltd. (104 ITD86) and Johnson G Oommen (43DTR338).It was also argued that the FAA,while deciding the appeal for the AY.2004-05,had accepted the contention of the assessee about the claim made u/s.80HHC in view of the retrospective amendment. 3.After considering the submission of the assessee,the FAA held that the AO had mentioned that the claim made by the assessee u/s.80HHC was rejected by in appellate proceedings,that the order of the AO had merged with the order of the FAA,that after that the AO had no power to rectify the order,that the AO had rightly rejected the application.

6443/13KishoreGokal-99-00