IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.08.2010 CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.695 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .. Appellant vs. M/s. Ambatture Clothing Ltd. 86-E/2, Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 18.12.2009 passed in I.T.A.No.1363/Mds/2008 against the order dated 31.03.2008 on the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) VIII Chennai passed in ITA.No.59/2007-08, against the order dated 11.06.2007 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I (1) Chennai passed in G.I.R.No.AX1-091, 2003-2004. For Appellant : Mr.K.Subramanian Sr. Standing Counsel for Income-tax For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan Judgment (Judgment of the Court was delivered by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.) The Revenue has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2009 passed in ITA.No.1363 of 2008. The assessment year pertains to 2003-04. The issue arose out of rectification order passed by the Assessing Authority by order dated 11.06.2007 invoking his power under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act. 2. According to the Assessing Authority, the assessee, which is an export concern, claimed the benefits under Section 10A/10B of the Act, apart from claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, for the remaining 10% of the profits, which was to suffer tax, after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applying Section 10A/10B of the Act. According to the Assessing Authority, such a claim made under Section 80HHC in respect of the remaining 10% of the profits amounted to a claim of double deduction, which was not permissible. On the said basis, the Assessing Authority took the view that the said issue was an apparent mistake on the face of the record, which he rectified by passing his order dated 11.06.2007. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) having partly allowed the appeal, the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that such a claim made under Section 80HHC of the Act for the remaining 10% of the profits cannot be held to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the view taken by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order was a possible view. In other words, the Tribunal held that it cannot be said that there was any error apparent on the face of the record in order to invoke Section 154 of the Act and by passing a rectification order, virtually passed an order of review of Assessing Authority's original order of assessment. 4. When we examine the issue raised in this appeal, at the very outset, it will have to be pointed out that even under Section 10A(6) (iii) of the Act, there is a specific provision, which reads as under: "No deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-I or section 80-IA or section 80-IB in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking; and" 5. The very statutory provision prescribing a prohibition in respect of the deductions in relation to the profits and gains itself, has not specifically included Section 80HHC. Apparently, it therefore would only mean that there was no prohibition for claiming any deduction under Section 80HHC while applying the benefits provided under Section 10A of the Act. If that is the statutory prescription, by which the assessee was entitled to claim a benefit under Section 80HHC in relation to the profits and gains while invoking Section 10A, it will have to be concluded that the assessment order in having allowed such a deduction of the remaining 10% of the profits earned by the assessee, was not erroneous. In any event, having regard to such a statutory prescription available for the assessee to claim the benefit under Section 80HHC in respect of the profits earned from Section 10A of the Act, there is absolutely no scope for the Assessing Authority to have invoked Section 154 of the Act, in order to state that, that can be considered as an error apparent, inasmuch as, there was no error at all, much less, apparent error to be rectified by the Assessing Authority. 6. This conclusion of ours is apart from the conclusion of the Tribunal in having held that in that situation what was held by the Assessing Authority in the original assessment order was a possible https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ view and that cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of the records. 7. We, therefore, do not find any scope to entertain this appeal, inasmuch as we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law. This appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ATR To 1. The Secretary Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rajaji Bhavan, III Floor, Besant Nagar, Madras 'A' Bench Madras.90. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII No.121, M.G.Road, Chennai 600034. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. 1 cc To Mr.K.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.56271. 1 cc To Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, Advocate, SR.56137. TC (A) No.695 of 2010 BS(CO) RVL 11.08.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/