Bhatsons Acquatic Products vs Commissioner of Income Tax

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.—Two questions are raised in the connected appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2003-04.

We have heard advocate sri p. Balakrishnan, appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

The first question pertains to the disallowance of deduction claimed for exemption u/s 80hhc of the Income Tax act, 1961. The assessee is a supporting manufacturer, who sold marine products to the exporters for export by them. In support of the assessee''s claim for deduction, the assessee produced disclaimer certificate from the exporters in form no. 10ccab. Even though the assessing officer allowed the claim, the commissioner of Income Tax, on scrutiny of the assessment, noticed that the exporters have suffered loss in respect of the transaction and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction based on the disclaimer certificate issued by them. The order of the commissioner issued u/s 263 of the Income Tax act is confirmed by the tribunal. After hearing both sides and after going through the order of the tribunal, we notice that the tribunal has only followed the decision of the supreme court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, wherein the supreme court has clearly held that unless profit is derived by the exporters in respect of the export, the supporting manufacturer is not entitled to deduction based on the disclaimer certificate issued which in this case produced by the appellant shows that exports resulted in loss to the exporters. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the tribunal''s order, which is rendered, following the decision of the supreme court.

The next question pertains to the Assessee''s claim for deduction u/s 80-IA. We notice that the claim is not tenable because fish processing is not manufacture or production of an article as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum Vs. Relish Goods, . Therefore, no interference is warranted with the finding of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner. The appeals are dismissed.