- (1.) HEARD the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order by 22nd May, 2001, (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) of the CIT, Meerut. The petitioner has claimed deduction under S. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of profit obtained from the export business. The petitioner has filed an application before the CIT under cl. (2)(a) of the aforesaid provision, which has been rejected by the CIT against which he has filed this writ petition. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the CIT. The CIT has mentioned that the petitioner has produced a fax message dt. 10th Jan., 1999, stating that due to heavy slump in Dubai the payment could not be made in time. However, the CIT has doubted the genuineness of this fax message as correspondence between the petitioner (Taj Mahal Exports, Ghaziabad) and purchaser Al Fayoom Trading EST Dubai) regarding realization of sale proceeds was not produced. The CIT has further said that no evidence was produced in respect of the claim of the petitioner that there was slump in Dubai or the international market and that the sale proceeds could only be realized beyond a period of 2 years from the sale of the goods.
(3.) SHRI Vikram Gulati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that the CIT has wrongly observed that the assessee has not produced the correspondence and other material regarding the realization of the sale proceeds. If that is so, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the learned CIT, Meerut, again by means of a suitable application, and if he can satisfy the CIT that there were other materials and correspondences, which were placed before the CIT, but which were not considered, then it will be open to the CIT to reconsider his order and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner may approach the CIT, Meerut, who shall decide the same application in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of, with these observations.;