1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.2765 OF 2004 Shri Kamlesh R. Shah .. Petitioner v/s. Commissioner of Income-tax XVI, Mumbai & ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sunil Lala for petitioner. Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Mr.R.Asokan i/by Mr.P.Kapur for respondents. CORAM : R.M.LODHA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 18th October, 2004 P.C. Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 3. The advocate on record for the revenue waives service. 4. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, rule is treated on board for final hearing. 5. Having taken into consideration the relevant aspects, we are of the view that the application made by the petitioner on 10.11.1998 seeking extension under section 80HHC (2)(a) for realisation of outstanding export proceeds requires 2 reconsideration. It appears from the available record that for the export vide invoice Nos.13/96-97 dated 29.3.1997 and 14/96-97 dated 31.3.1997, the payment has been received on various dates viz. 9.10.1997, 10.10.1997, 28.10.1997, 27.11.1998, 15.1.1998, 11.2.1998, 20.2.1998, 10.3.1998 and 12.3.1998. The payment that has been received is delayed. The explanation given by the assessee for delayed receipt of proceeds for exports vide aforesaid invoices was Asian currency crisis in South-East Asian countries and devaluation of Hongkong dollar. The Commissioner seems to have overstretched the matter by observing that assessee ought to have established with evidence that he was unable to bring the convertible foreign exchange for the reasons beyond control. The assessee’s explanation that it was due to Asian Currency crisis in South-East Asian Countries and devaluation of Hongkong dollar suggests that it was beyond assessee’s control. The matter requires consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XVI, Mumbai. 7. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 5.2.2004 impugned in the writ petition and direct the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XVI, Mumbai to reconsider the petitioner’s application 3 dated 10.11.1998 seeking extension under section 80HHC (2)(a) in accordance with law. 8. Rule is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) J.) (J.P. (J.P. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) DEVADHAR, J.) DEVADHAR, J.)