2008 (8) TMI 784 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption under section 80HHC without considering Circular No. 729, dated November 1, 1995.
2. Treatment of a sum of Rs. 16,05,363 as bad debts.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The first issue revolves around the grant of exemption under section 80HHC without considering Circular No. 729, dated November 1, 1995. The Assessing Officer initially denied the exemption to the assessee based on the circular's prospective nature. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee concerning the claim under section 80HHC. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also upheld this decision, leading the Revenue to file an appeal. The High Court observed that the matter should be re-examined by the Assessing Officer in light of the judgment in CIT v. God Granites [2003] 262 ITR 567 (SC). The court concluded that the issue of exemption under section 80HHC needs fresh assessment, and therefore, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

Issue 2: The second issue pertains to the treatment of a sum of Rs. 16,05,363 as bad debts. The Tribunal allowed this claim by the assessee, which was challenged by the Revenue. The High Court highlighted that it is the Assessing Officer's responsibility to determine if there exists a genuine bad debt that has been written off. This assessment involves factual considerations and examining relevant circumstances. The court noted the Revenue's argument that the purchasers had paid the consideration to the assessee, emphasizing the need for the Assessing Officer to verify whether the consideration was indeed received. As the Assessing Officer had not conducted this assessment, the High Court decided to set aside the previous orders and remand the matter for a fresh evaluation in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the need for a thorough reassessment by the Assessing Officer regarding the exemption under section 80HHC and the treatment of bad debts. The decision emphasized the importance of factual analysis and compliance with legal procedures in resolving the issues raised in the appeal.