PRAKASH KRISHNA,RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),JJ. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 260 -A of the Income - tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", challenging the order dated 23rd October, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi in ITA No. 2967/Del/1998 for the Assessment Year 1993 -94. In the memo of appeal the following substantial question of law has been proposed. "Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the additional claim of deduction u/s 80HHC should not be denied even in the course of the re -assessment proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, when the same was neither claimed nor considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment?" Heard Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the Department and Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the assesee - respondents.
(2.) THE background facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has filed its return on 31.12.1993 showing net income of Rs.nil., which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and the assessee was reassessed. Certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer and the matter ultimately reached to the Tribunal. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal in part by that order made the following observations. "We are of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play the matter pertaining to the assesee's claim of deduction u/s 80HHC on the export turnover of Rs.47,53,986/ - has to be set aside and restored to the AO for reconsideration and fresh orders. The AO is directed to verify whether this export turnover was credited in the books of accounts produced at the time of the original assessment and the export receipts in convertible foreign exchange were received within the stipulated time and that the deduction u/s 80 HHC was not allowed in respect of the said export turn over merely because the auditors did not consider the said export turnover for want of bank export certificate about the same. The AO is also directed to verify the bank export certificate and the auditors certificate in respect of the same. After considering these details and evidences he should take fair and just decision in the matter. We are of the view that if the deduction u/s 80HHC was legal and on fact admissible to the assesee, the same should not be denied even in the course of the re -assessment proceedings u/s 143 (3)/147 of the Act. With these observations, we restored the matter to the AO" Learned counsel for the Department submits that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that if ultimately it was found that the deduction under Section 80HHC was legal its benefit should be extended to the assessee. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in C.I.T. v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., (1992) 198 ITR 297(SC), especially, last paragraph at page 320 which provides that in proceedings under section 147 of the Act, the Income -tax Officer may bring to charge items of income which had escaped assessment other than or in addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of the notice under section 148 and where reassessment is made under section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax.
(3.) WE do not find that the view taken by the Tribunal in the order under appeal in any manner is contrary to the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily.;