IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.180 of 2007 Date of decision: 10.2.2011 M/s Deva Singh Sham Singh -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.25(ASR)/2006 for the assessment year 2001-02 raising following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the deduction u/s 80 HHC is not allowable against current year export income? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation have priority to be set off as compared to the deduction under Section 80 HHC for the current year? I.T.A. No.180 of 2007 (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, a liberal construction should be put upon the language of the statute while interpreting the provision of Section 80 HHC?” The assessee is an exporter and claimed deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the assessee at nil income but the Commissioner invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that benefit of Section 80 HHC could not be given by taking into account brought forward losses. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (2004) 12 SCC 742 and Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, Income Tax, Mumbai and another (2008) 4 SCC 22. In view of above, the view taken by the Tribunal has to be upheld and the questions raised on behalf of the assessee have to be answered against it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 10, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2