AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule taken up for hearing forthwith.
The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of export of cut and polished diamonds. During the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner, inter alia, exported goods to Siroya Jewellers, Dubai, under Invoice No. 21/93-94 dated 29-3-1994, of the value of U.S. $ 26,910.79 and Famous Jewellers, Bangkok, under Invoice No. 22/93-94 dated 30-3-1994 of the value of U.S. $ 42,184.85.
The petitioner could not receive the sale proceeds in respect of the above transactions despite its best efforts within the period of six months from the end of the previous year as stipulated u/s 80HHC(2)(a) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act''). The petitioner''s application for extension of time as provided u/s 80HHC(2)(a) was rejected by the first respondent.
The amounts in respect of Invoice No. 21 /93-94 and Invoice No. 22/93- 94 were received by the petitioner on 21-3-1995 and 16-11-1994, respectively.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, particularly the fact that the petitioner has received the sale proceeds on 16-11-1994 and 21-3-1995, the petitioner is justified in contending that the petitioner received the sale proceeds after some time over which the petitioner had no control. Therefore, the impugned order (Exhibit ''E'' to the petition) dated 25-3- 1996 is set aside.
Respondent No. 1 is directed to pass appropriate fresh order in consonance with the provisions of section 80HHC(2)(a) after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute to the above extent, with no order as to costs.