- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for appellant.
(2.) THIS Court admitted this appeal on 21st February, 2011 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether in the facts and in the present circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC on export of marble blocks ignoring the fact that in view of Circular No.693 dated 17.11.1994 there was no substantial value addition." Learned counsel for appellant fairly and frankly conceded that similar appeal of the department against same assessee i.e. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.13/2008 on the same point, which is involved in the present case, has already been dismissed by this Court on 17th May, 2013 along with D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos.170/2008 and 124/2008. He further submitted that present case is fully covered by above referred judgment, therefore, the present appeal may also be disposed of for the same reasons, which have been assigned in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.13/2008.
(3.) THE order dated 17th May, 2013 is reproduced as under :- " Learned counsel for parties conceded that point involved in the present matter has already been considered and decided by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arihant Tiles and Minerals (P) Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2013) 257 CTR (Raj.) 169. Paras 22 to 25 of the above referred judgment is reproduced, as under :- "22. In the present case, finding of the learned Tribunal is in favour of assessee-respondents and it has been categorically held that the assessee-respondents are eligible for deduction under s.80HHC of the Act for export of marble blocks, which were cut and polished. These findings are, indisputably, binding on this Court in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks and Sarees (supra). The appellant-Revenue has also not controverted that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on facts are not correct or are perverse. Therefore, the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal need not be gone into by us. 23. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the learned Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction under s.80HHC of the Act regarding export of cut and polished marble blocks during relevant years by the assessee-respondents. The appeals of the Revenue, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and the substantial question of law framed above is accordingly answered in favour of assessee-respondents and against the appellant-Revenue. 24. It is also pertinent to note that since the Circular No.693, dt. 17th Nov.,1994 has already been referred to and discussed along with the substantial question of law framed in these appeals for the second substantial question of law framed in Appeal No.29 of 2008 regarding legal effect of Circular No. 693, it is also held that said circular does not adversely affect claims of the assessee-respondents and the assessees are entitled to benefit of deduction under s.80HHC of the Act. Thus, the second substantial question of law framed in Appeal No. 29 of 2008 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee-respondent and against the appellant-Revenue. 25. In view of the above, these appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 2. The present appeals are, accordingly, dismissed for the same reasons, which have been assigned in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arihant Tiles and Minerals (P) Ltd. and Ors.(supra). 3. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on record in each connected file". ;