TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties: It is pleaded that the petitioner, who is an assessee, is engaged in manufacturing and export of ready-made garments to various countries. There were nine export consignments relating to the financial year 1993-94 which could not be realised during the prescribed period, i.e., September 30, 1994. In that view of the matter the petitioner had made applications (numbering 4) under section 80HHC(2)(a) under the Income-tax Act, 1961, which contemplates that the assessee should apply within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or within such period as the competent authority may allow in this behalf. In this respect, para. 10 of the writ petition is relevant which is quoted below- "That the petitioner has move ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was enclosed with the return of income. However, there is no evidence on assessment records of the petitioner to the effect that he made apprise the Department with the subsequent developments, i.e., efforts made towards realisation and the evidence for furnishing application for further extension of time subsequently on October 15, 1994, January 28, 1995, May 10, 1995, and September 4, 1995." It is apparent that the petitioner had applied for extension of time on the ground that the entire amount in foreign exchange is realised and certified by the bank in a letter dated December 22, 1995. It is contended that in spite of rigorous efforts being made, the same yielded nothing. In para. 15 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have no opportunity to rebut the same. However, we are prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has offered seeking extension of time for non-payment of nine consignments when in similar and identical situation extension has been allowed to another manufacturer. We consider it discriminatory if others have been allowed the opportunity why the case of the petitioner has not been considered. In that view of the matter we set aside the impugned order dated March 27, 1996/annexure 5 to the writ petition in part to the extent it disallowed the two applications filed by the petitioner under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, referred to above, with the direction to the concerned authority to decide the same in accordance with law afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
