ITA/422/2009 of D.D.INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Vs CIT, BATHINDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 203 ITA-422-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 D.D. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA …Resp ondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate (through V .C.) with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondent-Income Tax Department *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is seeking setting aside of or der dated 17.10.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that question of applicability of Section 80HHC(3) exporters having export turnover of more than Rs.10 crores stands settled in favour of asses see by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘C.I.T. -5 & Anr. Vs. M/s Avani Exports & Anr.’ 3. The dispute is confined to submission of Bank Real ization Certificate (for short ‘BRC’) with respect to export. The appellant exported goods and availed benefit of Duty Entitlement Passb ook Scheme (for short DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.09 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-422-2009 -2- ‘DEPB’) as provided under Export and Import Policy issue d under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. As per impugned orders, the appellant did not furnish bank certificate in respe ct of export of goods to the tune of Rs.201 crores, thus, appellant is not entit led to deduction under Section 80HHC with respect to value of DEPB. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that app ellant has duly submitted consignment-wise BRC with Directorate General of Foreign Trade (for short ‘DGFT’) as well as Income Tax Authorities. There is no p rovision of consolidated BRC. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that In come Tax Appellate Tribunal has not adverted to question of BRC, thus, matter may be remanded to Assessing Officer to verify authenticity of BRC. 6. It is factually correct that BRC is issued by Bank s consignment- wise. Consolidated BRC is not issued by Bank. The re are all possibilities of submission of BRC by appellant with DGFT as well as Customs Authorities. The appellant cannot be denied benefit of deduction on the ground that it has not submitted consolidated BRC. 7. The appeal stands disposed of with a direction to Assessing Authority to re-examine its record and if it is fou nd that consignment-wise BRC are available, demand would be dropped. If consignment-wise BRC are not available on record, the appellant may be asked to submit the same. The appellant shall submit BRC within two months from t he date of requisition and Assessing Officer shall pass an appropriate ord er within one month thereafter. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.09 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-422-2009 -3- 8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of . (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE December 08, 2026 Deepak DP A Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.09 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document