Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ganeshi Lal and Sons

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court:

Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that sales made by the assessee in India to foreign tourists against convertible foreign exchange were export sales within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:

The reference relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The respondent assessee is a dealer in embroidery and marble goods at Agra. It had sold certain goods to foreign tourists against convertible foreign exchange at its counter. The goods so sold were taken by the foreign tourists outside India. The respondent-assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act in respect of such counter sales which was denied by the assessing officer. However, the Tribunal has held that such sales are also eligible and fall within the meaning of words export sales u/s 80HHC of the Act.

We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.

We find that the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Silver and Arts Palace, has held that the counter sales made to foreign tourist against convertible foreign exchange which is taken out of India is covered u/s 80HHC of the Act. The Apex Court has approved the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Babu and Sons and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, .

In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.