9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kla, CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 2. This appeal is filed late by 92 days and the assessee filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating the delay is neither wanton nor willful but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and thus prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeal for hearing as it was prevented by sufficient cause in filing of the appeal in time. 2.1 To this plea of the condonation of delay, the ld. DR did not strongly object. 2.2 After hearing both sides and considering the material on record with regard to limitation issue, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. As such, while accepting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 of the Act. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer recomputed the deduction allowable under section 80HHC by reducing 90% of income on sale of DEPB license and computed the income accordingly. Later, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai - I issued a notice under section 263 of the Act dated 23.02.2010 requiring the assessee to show-cause as to why the assessment completed on 26.11.2007 under section 143(3) read with section 147 by the Assessing Officer should not be set aside as the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that deduction under section 80HHC was allowed before set off of carry forward losses of earlier assessment years. 5. The assessee filed its objection t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim was flatly denied. He submits that the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the said amendment in section 80HHC and an ad interim stay was granted by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The counsel for the assessee submits that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports & Others v. CIT & Ors. in a batch of appeals by order dated 02.07.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 7926 of 2006 has held that the amendment to Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 is only prospective and could be given effect from the date of amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years. The counsel for the assessee further submits that in view of the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories v. DCIT (supra). Because, what was challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble Madras High Court was the constitutional validity of retrospective amendment to section 80HHC, whereby the export turnover of Rs..10.00 crores was arbitrarily fixed to confer certain benefit under section 80HHC, DEPB profits, cash incentives and other sums. Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports & Others v. CIT & Ors.(supra) holding that amendment to section 80HHC is prospective and could be given effect from the date of amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years is also nothing to do with the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
