Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2722 2002 SLD 2722 (2002) 257 ITR 323
Calcutta High Court

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Drastic Forging P. Ltd.

v.

Deputy Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with article 226 of the Constitution of India - Deductions - Exporters - Assessment year 1993-94 - Whether where for assessment year 1993-94, assessee applied, in the year 2001, under section 80HHC(2)(a) to Commissioner for extension of time for realisation of export sales proceeds, application was not maintainable as after 1-6-1999 such authority under section 80HHC(2)(a) could be exercised by RBI or other authority specifically vested with said power - Held, yes FACTS The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1993-94 refusing to allow full deduction to the petitioner under section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer refused to grant any deduction to the petitioner in respect of the amount which could not be realised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction under section 80HHC(2)(a). The petitioner applied to the Commissioner in 2001 for extension of time for bringing the balance export proceeds beyond the period of six months. The Commissioner returned the petitioner's application for extension of time for repatriation of balance export value in view of the amendment of section 80HHC(2)(a), with effect from 1-6-1999 by the Finance Act, 1999, according to which, such power could only be exercised by the Reserve Bank of India or such other authority specifically vested with the said power. According to the petitioner, the Commissioner had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. On writ, the respondent brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had suppressed material facts from the Court, inasmuch as pendency of appeal before the Tribunal against the issue of notice under section 143(2) was not disclosed. HELD It had been specifically informed to the petitioner that the RBI or such other authority is authorised under the law to take the steps in the matter and the Commissioner has no authority to deal with. It is clear that the Commissioner has no authority to deal with the matter. The revenue contended that since the matter was pending before the Tribunal, which fact had been suppressed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492