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 WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 ITA.No. 750 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.288/2003 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: --------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- SMT.HALEEMA ZUBAIR, M/S.POSEDION FOOD COMPANY, P.T.USHA ROAD, COCHIN-682 011. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, ALONG WITH ITA.749 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos. 749 and 750 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard the Standing Counsel for appellant. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeal) who held that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC as a supporting manufacturer for the seafoods exported. On going through the orders we find that the claim was originally allowed and was later withdrawn under Section 147 proceedings for the reason that assessee was not engaged in any processing or manufacturing. However we find from the orders of the authorities below that assessee got the processing of seafoods done by engaging an agency and it is the processed seafood that was exported on behalf of the export house. In fact the export house has issued certificate based on which claim was made. In view of the findings on facts based on which decision is rendered by the appellate authorities, we decline to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Consequently the appeals are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb