ANBU TEXTILES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T. (SS) A. No. 88/Mds of 1997 dated September 1, 1999.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted and the following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue in her fairness has not made any objection to the same. We find force in the submission of Mrs. Anitha Sumanth, learned counsel for the appellant. It is clear that Section 158BB of the Act was amended with full retrospective effect, from July 1, 1995, and under the amended provision, the undisclosed income of the block period shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, the provisions contained in Chapter VI -A of the Act should also be taken into consideration in determining the undisclosed income of the block period. It is true that the Appellate Tribunal decided the matter on the basis of law then existing. The amendment came into force only by the Finance Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995. Since the amendment has been given retrospective effect, we are of the view, the provision, as amended, would be the proper provision for determining the undisclosed income of the block period. We are therefore of the view that the Appellate Tribunal should go into the question whether the assessee is actually eligible to claim deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act as the Appellate Tribunal had no opportunity to decide the said question. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the question whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on the merits of the case. It is made clear that it is open to the Appellate Tribunal to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the question. It is also open to the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.