TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .D. Singh appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. Sri S.D. Singh submits that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal, is covered by decision of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abad Fisheries [(2002) 258 ITR 0641] 3. Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, counsel for the appellant-revenue submits that though apparently the question appears to be covered by decision in Abad Fisheries (Supra), the revenue has chosen, not to accept the decision of the Tribunal in view of the definition of the terms 'export turnover' and 'total turnover' mentioned in explanation (b) and (ba) to Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The substantial question of law, involved in this appeal is : - "Whether on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recting the A.O. to exclude unrealized export receipts of Rs.65,92,837/- from the total turnover, without appreciating the definitions, which do not provide for any such exclusion from the 'total turnover' of assessee. It is contended that receipts of export turn over of Rs.65,92,837/- were accounted for after the end of the assessment period, and thus these receipts should not have been added as per definitions of expression 'export turnover' and 'total turnover'. 7. Sri S.D. Singh, on the other hand, states that Section 80 HHC of the Act provides for a formula to work total turnover for the purposes of assessment. He submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that if an amount does not form part of the export tur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eners Ltd., 272 ITR-652 (Mad) and Godhara Electricity Company Ltd Vs. CIT 255 ITR 646 (Guj) for proposition that if certain amount is not included in the export turnover then that will not be included in the total turnover also. He accordingly, directed the AO to re-commute the deduction u/s 80 HHC after excluding the aforesaid amount from the 'total turnover'. 4. Against this, the ld. D.R relied on the order of the AO, whereas the ld. A.R. supported the order of the ld. CIT (A). 5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for the order of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Abad Fisheries case (supra). The Hon'ble Kerala Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of any other High Court on that question." Accordingly, we hold that if an amount does not form part of import turnover, then it cannot form part of total turnover. The logic is simple. The export turnover is part of total turnover i.e. total turnover consists of export turnover and some other amounts, which are actually or deemed to be part of total turnover. If for certain reasons an amount does not become part of export turnover then that cannot also become part of total turnover. It cannot be a case for something as excluded form export turnover, but still will be a part of total turnover. It is illogical. If an amount is not a profit, then it will not be a profit, either from the export or from total turnover. Accordingly, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
