A.P. Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel for the Revenue.
(2.) IN view of the exchange of affidavits in accordance with the rules of the court, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated January 20, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, annexure "9" to the writ petition and also to direct the said authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. It also seeks staying the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1991-92. According to the case set up in the writ petition, the petitioner is a 100 per cent. export-oriented unit and is a private limited company dealing in the manufacture and export of leather goods. For the assessment year 1991-92, the petitioner made an application for extension of time on December 27, 1991, under Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The total export shown by the petitioner was Rs. 1,50,71,347 out of which the export bills worth of Rs. 62,98,893 remained outstanding on March 31, 1991. A further figure which is relevant for the purpose of this writ petition is Rs. 29,96,816 which remained outstanding on October 1, 1991, that is to say after more than six months of the close of the accounting year. It is significant that up to November 29, 1991, an amount of Rs. 14,34,016 was realised by the petitioner leaving the balance of Rs. 15,62,800. Thereafter two other amounts were received, namely, Rs. 1,74,000 and Rs. 63,000 on July 21, 1992, and October 13, 1992, respectively. Further, other two amounts, namely, Rs. 5,25,300 received on April 29, 1994, and Rs. 8,00,500 received on April 29, 1994, were also taken into account.
(3.) BEFORE entering into the merits, at the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated, as stated earlier, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, that for the last two balance amount of Rs. 13,25,800, the petitioner does not press for deduction under Section 80HHC. This leaves us the balance amount received by the petitioner beyond the period of six months as aforesaid. The short question involved is whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality and is liable to be quashed or not. In order to appreciate this relevant Section 80HHC(2)(a), the same is quoted as under : "(2)(a) This section applies to all goods or merchandise, other than those specified in Clause (b), if the sale proceeds of such goods or merchandise exported out of India are received in, or brought into India by the assessee (other than the supporting manufacturer) in convertible foreign exchange, within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or, where the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied (for reasons to be recorded in writing) that the assessee is, for reasons beyond his control, unable to do so within the said period of six months, within such further period as the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may allow in this behalf." The petitioner's case is one which falls under Sub-section (2)(a). The only question raised is whether the petitioner is entitled to be allowed in computing the total income, a deduction out of the profit from the export of such goods or merchandise if the sale proceeds are received beyond six months on the facts and circumstances of this case.;