High Court Of Calcutta
Maritime Overseas vs. CIT
Section : 80HHB
Girish Chandra Gupta And Tapash Mookherjee, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 249 Of 2003
January 28, 2014
JUDGMENT
1. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal by the assessee is a judgment and order dated June 10, 2003, by which the learned Tribunal disallowed deduction under section 80HHB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessee could not file any evidence or document to show that there was any kind of project/contract with any foreign company except that he was engaged in supplying labourers on a particular project.
2. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-assessee, drew our attention to the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which to be precise reads as follows :
“I have gone through the assessment order carefully, considered the submissions of Sri V. P. Tyagi, advocate for the assessee. The assessee is engaged in assembly, reassembly, installation, renovation, continuous updating the machinery, plants, mechanical, electronic and air-conditioning systems on board foreign vessels mostly while the vessel is sailing on high seas with the help of highly efficient, quality conscious and competent technicians approved for the class of vessels they are to work on with most modern computerised techniques. On receipt of order the requirement of men, material, technology, cost and time is meticulously worked out, the plans got approved by principals, the equipment and technicians are carefully selected and got approved, the project is executed with high degree of know-how, vigilant supervision and monitoring maintenance of highest quality, efficiency, cost and time schedules is ensured. The workmen and the work executed have to be approved by the international agencies and certificate of seaworthiness of the vessel has to be obtained at every port of sail. To call it simple repairs and maintenance with the help of labourers is too simplistic and lack of understanding of the nature of the job. To my mind the work is foreign project within the meaning of section 80HHB(2)(b)(ii)/(iii) as it includes planning and designing or doing something and has been executed as a single integral work order. It is technically also a project as it includes man, job design, control system design and design of a method of employing specific technology to do the work. Entire consideration is attributable to such execution of the projects. Certificate of auditors on Form No. 10CCA has been furnished. The learned Assessing Officer is satisfied with other requirements for eligibility for entitlement to deduction under section 80HHB. The assessee is granted deduction for Rs. 4,32,346 and the disallowance of claim under section 80HHB is deleted.”
3. Mr. Biswas submitted that the learned Tribunal in exercise of the appellate power was duty bound to demonstrate infirmity in the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which the learned Tribunal did not do. The Tribunal by a cryptic order has disallowed the benefit capriciously rather than on the basis of any reason.
4. Mr. Nizumuddin, learned advocate for the Revenue, submitted that the expression “foreign project” has been defined in sub-section (2)(b) of section 80HHB of the Income-tax Act and the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee was not involved with any work in any foreign project.
5. We have considered the submissions and are of the opinion that the submission advanced by Mr. Biswas must be accepted. The question of fact was duly considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal unnecessarily and without any reason interfered with the same.
6. The order of the Tribunal, as such, is reversed and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is restored.
7. The appeal is, thus, disposed of.
[Citation : 361 ITR 434]
