- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial question of law on 7th August, 2009: - Whether the learned Tribunal was in error in taking view as taken in the impugned order despite having taken contrary view in the case of " this assessee itself during earlier year?
(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellant submitted that present case relates to Assessment Year 2004 -05. In the case of present assessee/appellant for the Assessment Year 2003 -04, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal took a view that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act for export of marble blocks, which are cut and polished, whereas in the present case, the Tribunal took a contrary view and declined deduction, therefore, this appeal was admitted on the above mentioned question of law. He further submitted that the Department preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 39/2008, Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vs. M/s. Galaxy Exports, against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of Assessment Year 2003 -04, wherein same question of fact and law is involved. He submitted that this Court has dismissed the D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 39/2008 filed against assessee/appellant in respect of Assessment Year 2003 -04 and affirmed the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, meaning thereby, it has been held by this Court that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, for Export of Marble Blocks, which are cut and polished. He submitted that present matter relates to the Assessment Year 2004 -05, wherein Tribunal had taken a contrary view. He submitted that the question involved in the present case has already been considered and answered in favour of assessee and it has been that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent/Revenue submitted that although this Court has considered the point involved in the present appeal in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 39/2008, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal only already remanded the matter to Assessing Officer, therefore, instead of deciding the case on merits by this Court, it will be appropriate that assessing officer may be directed to decide the matter in the light of decision rendered by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO. 39/2008. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The dispute in the present case is in respect of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act for Export of Marble Blocks, which are cut and polished. So far as facts of the case are concerned, there is no dispute between parties that there was export of Marble Blocks, which are cut and polished in the Assessment Years 2003 -04 and 2004 -05. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of assessee itself relating to the Assessment Year 2003 -04 took a view that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, whereas in the Assessment Year 2004 -05 took a contrary view and held that assessee is not entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC. The decision of Tribunal rendered in the Assessment Year 2003 -04 was challenged before this Court by Revenue and Income Tax Appeal No. 39/2008 filed by Revenue has been dismissed by this Court along with D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 29/2008, Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vs. M/s. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and other connected 10 matters vide order dated 20th February, 2013, reported in, (2013) 257 CTR (Raj) 169. Since question involved in both the orders is one and same, therefore, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served in remitting/the matter to the Assessing Officer for re -examination as per direction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.;