R. Kantilal And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 446 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. Rule.

3. The advocate on record for the Revenue waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

4. Having taken into consideration the relevant aspects, we are of the view that the application made by the petitioner on 10th Sept., 1997, seeking extension under Section 80HHC(2)(a) for realisation of outstanding export proceeds requires reconsideration. It appears from the available record that for the exports, the payment has been received on various dates reflected in Exhibit 'K' annexed to the petition. The payments that have been received are, however, delayed. The explanation given by the assessee for delayed receipt of proceeds for exports vide aforesaid invoices was, "due to slackness in the diamond industries and they are also facing financial crises". The CIT seems to have over-stretched 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 crises 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.

5. We, accordingly, set aside the order dt. 15th March, 2004, impugned in the writ petition and direct the CIT, Mumbai City-XVI, Mumbai, to reconsider the petitioner's application dt. 10th Sept., 1997, seeking extension under Section 80HHC(2)(a) in accordance with law.

6. Rule is disposed of accordingly. No costs.