1998-VIL-351-KER-DT

Equivalent Citation: [1999] 237 ITR 867, 151 CTR 132, 101 TAXMANN 612

KERALA HIGH COURT

Date: 10.06.1998

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Vs

AM MOOSA

BENCH

Judge(s)  : OM PRAKASH., J. B. KOSHY 

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

OM PRAKASH C. J.-As directed by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 80HH on the income by way of sale of import licence, export house premium and customs draw-backs ?

(2) Whether, the Tribunal is right in holding that the withdrawal of deduction under section 80HH in proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is erroneous ?"

First, we take up the first question for consideration. This question came up for consideration before this court in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 1979-80 and then a Division Bench of this court in the case of the assessee himself (see A. M. Moosa, Bharath Sea Foods v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 735), held that in order to claim special deduction under sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the profits should be relatable to an industrial undertaking and there has to be material to show that it is derived from the business activity relatable to such an industrial undertaking. Profit or gain can be said to have been derived from an activity carried on by a person only if the said activity is an immediate and effective source of the said profit or gain. The Division Bench also held that, "there is no trace of any factual material to ascertain whether the amount can be said to have derived from business activity with reference to the industrial undertaking as is clearly contemplated in the statutory provisions". This is how the High Court eventually held that in working out the relief due to the assessee under sections 80HH and 80J, the Tribunal was right in excluding the export house premia and the sale of import entitlements.

Following the said authority, we answer the first question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Turning to the second question, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the validity of action, initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Simply because the Appellate Tribunal on merits held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80HH it jumped to the conclusion that there was no error in granting deduction under section 80HH. Since there is no categorical finding on the validity of the action taken under section 154 of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer, we refrain from going into the merits of question No. 2 and return this question unanswered.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.