IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.721 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 M/s Accent for Living. -----Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh “A” Bench in I.T.A. No.1032 /(DEL) of 2006 for the assessment year 2002-03, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether the ITAT was justified in law in holding that appellant was not entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB in respect of profits and gains arising on account of duty drawback, sale of replenishment licences and currency fluctuation which is intrinsically related/ I.T.A. No.721 of 2008 connected to the business profits of the industrial undertaking. II. That the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying the claims of the appellant u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by blindly relying upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Liberty India and other judgments which are distinguishable on facts itself. III. That the ITAT is not justified in reversing the orders of CIT(A) by holding that deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not available on duty drawback and sale of replenishment licenses to the appellant which is against the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.Des Raj Vs. CIT(SC).” IV. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the ITAT are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law.” V. Whether the ITAT has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961” The assessee claimed deduction in respect of income from duty drawback under Section 80IB of the Act, on sale of replenishment 2 I.T.A. No.721 of 2008 licence and currency fluctuation. The same was disallowed on the ground that the said income was not income derived from business undertaking. Similar claim for deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act was also made, which was also disallowed. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods. 237 ITR 579 and judgment of this Court in Liberty India v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 520. The view of the Assessing Officer was upheld by the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the view taken by the Tribunal, disallowing the claim of the assessee in respect of duty drawback is in accordance with the view already taken by this Court. We are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE December 22, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3