SAKTTHI FOOTWEAR Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals are at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'c' Bench, dated 18. 1. 2008 passed in ITA. Nos. 990 and 991/mds/2007 respectively.

(2.) THE relevant assessment years are 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The facts in both the appeals are one and the same in respect of both the assessment years, except the figures. Therefore, the facts as culled from one of the the memorandum of appeal i. e. , T. C. No. 1066 of 2008 are stated as follows: the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of shoe uppers. For the assessment year 2002-2003, the assessee filed its return of income on 30. 9. 2002 admitting an income of Rs. 2,40,000/ -. Subsequently, the appellant filed a revised return on 15. 11. 2002 declaring the same income. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) and refund of Rs. 4,83,971/- was issued on 25. 6. 2004. Subsequently notice under Section 148 was issued and assessment under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 was completed on 23. 3. 2006 determining the total income at Rs. 23,83,500/ -. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 80ib on export incentives in a sum of Rs. 1,45,85,838/- on the premise that the claim of the appellant that the duty draw back benefit was derived from the industrial undertaking. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the order of the lower authorities. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed before us in these appeals by formulating the following common question of law: "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction under Section 80ib in respect of duty drawback?

(3.) WE heard the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.