TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has produced particulars of blocks-purchased and purchase bills were made available vide letter dated 05.12.2005 - The AO has not invoked section 145(3) in its terms - Therefore, fall in G.P. rate cannot be made a reason for involving section 145(3) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 228/Jodh/2014, ITA No. 229/Jodh/2014, ITA No. 230/Jodh/2014, ITA No. 231/Jodh/2014, ITA No. 232/Jodh/2014 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2014 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Petitioner : None [W/S] For the Respondent : Shri Mahesh Kumar-D.R. ORDER Per Bench:- The above captioned appeals of the Revenue, for the A.Ys 1998-99 to 2003-04, are directed against the common order of ld. CIT(A), Udaipur, dated. 27.01.2014. Almost identical issues arising from common set of facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, for the sake of congruence, brevity and convenience these are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Late Shri Bhopal Singh Shekhawat, the proprietor of M/s Shekhawat (India) Exports, now deceased, and represented by his widow as legal heir namely Smt. Meena Singh Shekhawat, carried on the busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 HHC of the Act. Accordingly, the AO has made addition of ₹ 12,37,964/- in this year. Likewise, after disallowing similar claims in other years, the A.O. has disallowed and added them in the respective assessment years. Aggrieved, the assessee went before the ld. CIT(A) for all the years under consideration and he has , allowed a part relief vide order dated 28.08.2000. Aggrieved the assessee filed second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee had expired on 08.06.2006, however, it was noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed his order on 28.08.2006 [i.e. even after his death] in the assessee s name. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has found the order of ld. CIT(A) as non-est in the eyes of the law having been passed against a dead-person . Accordingly, orders passed, in all these years, by ld. CIT(A) were declared void-ab-initio and set-aside to the file of ld. CIT(A), Udaipur, for passing orders after hearing deceased assessee s legal heirs, as per law. Smt. Meena Singh Shekhawat his widow, was admitted and accepted as his legal heir and she was given opportunity of being heard. 2.2 In the second round the legal issue against reopening u/s 147 read with sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal Industries (P) Ltd, Udaipur others. A copy of this Judgment dated 20.02.2013 has been produced in support of assessee s claim. 3.3 After going through the above binding judgement, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80 HHC of the in these cases. The Hon ble High Court has held thus: 23. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the learned ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction under sec.80HHC of the Act regarding export of cut and polished marble blocks during relevant years by the assessee-respondents. The appeals of the Revenue, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and the substantial question of law framed above is accordingly answered in favour of assessee-respondents and against the appellant-Revenue. 24. It is also pertinent to note that since the Circular No.693 dated 17th November 1994 has already been referred to and discussed along with the substantial question of law framed in these appeals, for the second substantial question of law framed in Appeal No.29/2008 regarding legal effect of Circular No.693, it is also held that said Circular does not adversely affect claims of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in: 1. directing to allow deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act on export of marble blocks which were not polished as required by item (x) of the XII Schedule and ignoring the fact that there was no value addition in terms of cost of exported blocks as required by Circular No. 693 dated 17.11.1994. 2. allowing the deduction u/s 80HHC on income derived from sale of REP licence. 4.1 The ground No.(1) is in relation to allowance of deduction u/s 80HHC which we have allowed in A.Y 1998-99. Facts remaining same, we dismiss ground No.(1) in this year as well. 4.2 The facts apropos ground No.(2) of A.Y 1999-2000 are that the assessee has claimed deduction on sale of REP licence and the Assessing Officer has disallowed the same on the ground that the profit on sale of RE licence was not shown in the computation of income and in Form No. 10CCAC, and also did not furnish details of sale thereof. The case of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer never asked for such details at any point of time. 4.3 After hearing ld. D.R. vis- -vis the records, we have found that there is no such requirement in the form No. 10CCAC to show the profit on sale of REP licence. The Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The adhoc disallowance without any specific facts is not justified. Therefore, we confirm impugned deletion and dismiss ground No.(2) of Revenue s appeal. 6.3 In the result the appeal for A.Y 2002-03 in ITA 231/Jodh/2014 also stands dismissed. A.Y 2003-04 in ITA No.232/Jodh/2014 7. In this appeal of the Revenue for A.Y 2003-4, following grounds have been raised: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in 1. directing to allow deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act on export of marble blocks which were not polished as required by item (x) of the XII Schedule and ignoring the fact that there was no value addition in terms of cost of exported blocks as required by Circular No. 693 dated 17.11.1994. 2. Deleting the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 45,701/- made on account of personal use of vehicles. 7.1 Both the grounds are similar to the grounds raised in A.Y 2002-03. We have dismissed both grounds in that appeal. Therefore, with similar reasoning we dismiss both the grounds of this appeal and dismiss this appeal. 7.2 In the result the appeal for A.Y 2003-04 in ITA 232/Jodh/2014 also stands dismissed. 8. To sum up, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
