TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order could not be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The appellant prays that either the order under s. 263 be quashed or a direction may be given to compute the deduction under s. 80HHC without reducing the DEPB entitlements from profits of the business. 2. The learned CIT erred on facts and in law in revising the assessment order under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) without appreciating that the said assessment order was not erroneous as (a) DEPB entitlements are covered by s. 28(iiia)/(iiib), (b) export turnover in the proviso to s. 80HHC(3) would also include the turnover made through the export house (c) without prejudice, even if the views in (a) and (b) above are not correct, the same are high ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export incentive on which deduction under s. 80HHC has been claimed, the assessment order was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the learned CIT directed the AO to restrict the allowable deduction under s. 80HHC at Rs. 7,27,41,219 as against deduction allowed by the AO at Rs. 14,99,76,320. Aggrieved by the order, assessee is in appeal before us with the above grounds. 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the learned CIT has come to a wrong conclusion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It was submitted that the appellant had filed all the necessary details and documents before the AO during the scrutiny procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(iiib); (b), the AO's action in allowing deduction under s. 80HHC in respect of export incentive earned in respect of export made through export house by treating export house turnover as part of export turnover in the proviso to s. (3) to s. 80HHC, is in accordance with the view taken by Hon'ble Tribunal in following cases: 1. Asstt. CIT vs. Ashwini Fisheries Ltd. (2001) 72 TTJ (Mad) 261 : (2001) 77 ITD 561 (Mad). 2. Eastern Leather Products (P) Ltd vs. Dy. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (Del) 603: (1999) 68 ITD 358 (Del). The learned counsel finally submitted that the view taken by the AO is a possible view which is evident from the above facts, the order of the AO cannot be treated as erroneous. In support of the above, the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the given facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The AO has passed the order under s. 143(3) after taking all the necessary details and after discussing the case with the representative of the assessee. Now, the learned CIT has a different view on the issue involved. Under the circumstances, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., comes to the help of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "....The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
