M.M.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of a bunch of appeals* filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') against the order(s)** passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') because common questions of law and facts are involved.
(2.) ON 28.11.2007, ITA Nos. 343 and 344 of 2006, which have been filed by the assessee-appellant against the common order dated 5.10.2005, passed by the Tribunal in respect of Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98, were admitted by the Division Bench taking into account the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rani Paliwal v. CJI, (2004) 268 ITR 220 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip, (2007) 289 JTR 475 (Delhi) and the following substantial questions of law were framed: "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in reducing the net profits computed under the head profit and gain of business and profession by excluding 90% of receipts by way of rental, service charge, interest and sale of samples amounting to Rs. 11,77,555.00 to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC by taking into account the gross receipts received by the assessee as opposed to the net receipts by wrongly relying on the judgment of Rani Paliwal v. CIT, 268 ITR 220, which was clearly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case? ii) Whether the deduction under Section 80HHC is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act by taking into account the Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act which provides that the deductions claimed in Chapter VI-A are to be allowed as per the provisions of the Act meaning thereby that only the net amount of receipts are to be considered for exclusion under the explanation (baa) of the proviso to (4C) of Section 80HHC." Similarly, ITA Nos. 853 and 854 of 2008, which have been filed by the assessee-appellant against the common order dated 28.12.2007, passed by the Tribunal in respect of Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, were admitted vide order dated 12.5.2010 and the Division Bench formulated the following questions of law: "i) Whether the ratio of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Rani Paliwal vs. CIT, 268 ITR page 220 constitutes binding precedent being contrary to the provisions of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda 155 ITR Page 120. ii) Whether the deduction under Section 80HHC is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act by taking into account the Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act which provides that the deductions claimed in Chapter VI-A are to be allowed as per the provisions of the Act meaning thereby that only the next amount of receipts are to be considered for exclusion under the explanation (baa) of the proviso to 4(C) of Section 80HHC." The aforementioned appeals were ordered to be listed along with ITA Nos. 343 and 344 of 2006.
(3.) THE other ITA No. 194 of 2005 has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 17.3.2004 rendered by the Tribunal in respect of the Assessment Year 1994-95 in the case of M/s Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. (who has filed ITA Nos. 343 and 344 of 2006 in respect of Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98). This appeal was admitted on 22.1.2007 and the revenue- appellant has sought to raise the following substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in quashing the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 154 of the Income- tax Act thereby holding that claim of deduction under Section 80HHC(4B) of the Act, was a debatable issue, hence, could not be rectified under Section 154 of the Act?" ;