High Court Of Kerala
Bhatsons Acquatic Products vs. CIT
Section 80HHC, 80-IA, 263
Asst. Year 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04
C.N. Ramachandran Nair & V.K. Mohanan, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 1613, 1650 and 1664 of 2009
18th December, 2009
Counsel Appeared :
P. Balakrishnan, Mohan Pulikkal & K.C. Kiran, for the Appellant : P.K.R. Menon & Jose Joseph, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. :
Two questions are raised in the connected appeals filed by the assessee for the asst. yrs. 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2003-04.
We have heard advocate Sri P. Balakrishnan, appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
The first question pertains to the disallowance of deduction claimed for exemption under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee is a supporting manufacturer, who sold marine products to the exporters for export by them. In support of the assessee’s claim for deduction, the assessee produced disclaimer certificate from the exporters in Form No. 10CCAB. Even though the AO allowed the claim, the CIT, on scrutiny of the assessment, noticed that the exporters have suffered loss in respect of the transaction and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction based on the disclaimer certificate issued by them. The order of the Commr. issued under s. 263 of the IT Act is confirmed by the Tribunal. After hearing both sides and after going through the order of the Tribunal, we notice that the Tribunal has only followed the decision of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 187 CTR (SC) 513 : (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that unless profit is derived by the exporters in respect of the export, the supporting manufacturer is not entitled to deduction based on the disclaimer certificate issued which in this case produced by the appellant shows that exports resulted in loss to the exporters. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the Tribunal’s order, which is rendered, following the decision of the Supreme Court.
The next question pertains to the assessee’s claim for deduction under s. 80-IA. We notice that the claim is not tenable because fish processing is not manufacture or production of an article as held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Relish Foods (1999) 152 CTR (SC) 500 : (1999) 237 ITR 59 (SC). Therefore, no interference is warranted with the finding of the Tribunal confirming the order of the CIT. The appeals are dismissed.
[Citation : 329 ITR 67]
