IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 ITA.No. 107 of 2001() --------------------- (I.T.A. NO.441/COCH/93 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN.) APPELLANT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.SYNTHITE INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-16. ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR ADV. SRI.DALE P. KURIAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON 22/05/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. A. No.107 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rectification proceedings carried out under Section 154 by the officer is not tenable for the reason that issue involved is a debatable one. On going through the orders of the authorities below including the Tribunal and after hearing Standing Counsel for the appellant, we do not find anything wrong in the Tribunal's order because items involved are export incentives which are specifically excluded from the turnover by an amendment introduced with effect form 1.4.1991. In fact, even for the period prior to the amendment, these items were excluded from the scope of turnover. Besides all these, the question whether export incentive comes within the scope of turnover or not is a debatable issue and so 2 much so, rectification is not the remedy for correcting errors in assessment. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal and consequently appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms