Bombay H.C : The application made by the petitioner on 10th Nov., 1998, seeking extension under s. 80HHC(2)(a) for realisation of outstanding export proceeds requires reconsideration

High Court Of Bombay

Kamlesh R. Shah vs. CIT & ORS.

Section 80HHC(2)(a)

R.M. Lodha & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.

Writ Petn. No. 2765 of 2004

18th October, 2004

Counsel Appeared

Sunil M. Lala, for the Petitioner : B.M. Chatterjee with R. Asokan i/b P. Kapur, for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

By the court :

Heard. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The advocate on record for the Revenue waives service. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, rule is treated on board for final hearing. Having taken into consideration the relevant aspects, we are of the view that the application made by the petitioner on 10th Nov., 1998, seeking extension under s. 80HHC(2)(a) for realisation of outstanding export proceeds requires reconsideration. It appears from the available record that for the export vide invoice Nos. 13/1996-97, dt. 29th March, 1997, and 14/1996-97, dt. 31st March, 1997, the payment has been received on various dates viz., 9th Oct., 1997, 10th Oct., 1997, 28th Oct., 1997, 27th Nov., 1998, 15th Jan., 1998, 11th Feb., 1998, 20th Feb., 1998, 10th March, 1998 and 12th March, 1998. The payment that has been received is delayed. The explanation given by the assessee for delayed receipt of proceeds for exports vide aforesaid invoices was Asian currency crisis in South East Asian countries and devaluation of Hong Kong dollar. The CIT seems to have overstretched the matter by observing that assessee ought to have established with evidence that he was unable to bring the convertible foreign exchange for the reasons beyond control. The assessee’s explanation that it was due to Asian currency crisis in South East Asian countries and devaluation of Hong Kong dollar suggests that it was beyond assessee’s control. The matter requires consideration by the CIT, Mumbai City-XVI, Mumbai. We, accordingly, set aside the order dt. 5th Feb., 2004, impugned in the writ petition and direct the CIT, Mumbai City-XVI, Mumbai, to reconsider the petitioner’s application dt. 10th Nov., 1998, seeking extension under s. 80HHC(2)(a) in accordance with law. Rule is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

[Citation : 286 ITR 684]

Malcare WordPress Security