D. ANURADHA Vs. DY. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the assessee as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2000 -01, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE assessee, an exporter claimed export benefit under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs. 74,09,716 on the total export sales of Rs. 2,09,48,250. The assessing officer, on the perusal of the documents, namely export invoices, found that the part of export sales to the buyers to an extent of Rs. 1,54,26,957 are only rough granites but not dimensional granite blocks. Accordingly, the assessing officer, by following the CBDTs circular, did not grant deduction in respect of export of rough granite blocks. The assessing officer also pointed out that the assessee is only a trading exporter and has not incurred any expenses towards cutting, trimming and polishing to make the granites as value added products. However, the assessing officer has granted deduction of Rs. 19,52,965 only on sales of dimensional granite blocks to the extent of Rs. 55,21,293. In so far as the remaining claim is concerned, the same was rejected as inadmissible. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

(3.) IT is seen from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the invoice filed by the assessee at page Nos. 11 and 22 of the paper book before the Tribunal shows that the assessee had exported rough granite and however in so far as the export of dimensional granite blocks are concerned, the assessing officer had already granted deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal further pointed out that the contention of the assessee, namely, that the word rough was wrongly typed in the invoice cannot be accepted, as the export document should contain the correct description of the goods. The Tribunal had also pointed out that the goods cannot pass through the customs clearance if the description was not given correctly. It is not the case of the assessee that the Customs Authority had rectified the mistake by making necessary entries in their documents. Further, the Tribunal opined that even without polishing or trimming, the colour of the granite could be identified and therefore, the Tribunal pointed out that merely because the colour of the granite was mentioned, it could not be construed that the assessee had exported only dimensional blocks of granite. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee and accepted the case of the Revenue; consequently allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal is before us.