TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.7.2007 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2004-05. The only dispute raised in this appeal is regarding allowability of claim of deduction in respect of DEPB income. 2. The appeal is however delayed by 1598 days. The appeal which was due to be filed within the statutory time limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of order of CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g delay and accordingly it has been requested that the delay may be condoned. 2.1 The learned AR for the assessee submitted that there was no lack of due diligence in filing of the appeal and the delay was not deliberate. Therefore, the delay was required to be condoned. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in case of Remex Construction/Remex Electricals V/s ITO a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of claim of deduction u/s 80HHC in respect of DEPB income. The assessee had DEPB income of ₹ 3,81,34,020/- in respect of which deduction u/s 80HHC had been claimed. The assessee submitted before the AO that the amendment made by Finance Act 2005 had been challenged and the matter was pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. It was thus requested that the claim may be allowed. The AO howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowability of claim of deduction in relation to DEPB income. The special bench of Tribunal in case of Topman Exports Ltd.(33 SOT 337) had earlier held that face value of DEPB has to be considered as business income u/s 28(iii b) and in case of sale the excess of sale price over the face value has to be considered as business profit u/s 28(iii d) and deduction u/s 80HHC had to be computed according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
