IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  01.12.2010 
.
 Present:       Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate for the appellant/Revenue. 
.
.
 +ITA 1864/2010 
.
.
 The respondent assessee is engaged in the business of export of 
 readymade garments.   In the return filed by it for the assessment year 1999- 
 2000, the Assessing Officer noted that the export proceeds  amount to ` 1.20 
 crores  were not realized till 30th September, 1999 which was the stipulated 
 date  by which export proceeds has to be realized for computing the benefit of 
 Section 80 HHC of the Act.  The Assessing Officer, therefore, did not include 
 the aforesaid amount of ` 1.20 crores for computing the deduction under the 
 aforesaid provision. 
 Before the CIT (A), however, the assessee produced the requisite 
 Certificate which according to him could not be furnished earlier.   Acting on 
 this certificate, the CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to include the 
 amount of ` 1.20 crores in the export turnover for the computation of deduction 
 u/s 80 HHC of the Act.  This order is upheld by the ITAT as well. 
 Three submissions were made by the Revenue in the appeal filed before the 
 ITAT namely; 
 (a) As per the Certificate  the money was realized after the stipulated period 
 and, therefore, it could not have been taken into consideration 
.
.
 (b) The additional evidence was admitted by the CIT (A)  under Rule 46A  of the 
 Act which was not permissible. 
 (c) The Certificate which was produced  was issued by the Indian Overseas Bank 
 which  is not a competent authority to issue such certificates, inasmuch as, 
 Circular No.20 dated 28th January, 2002 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, if 
 the invoice value exceed US$ 1,00,000, only competent authority is Reserve Bank 
 of India. 
.
 In so far as first contention is concerned, as per Circular No.12 dated 
 9th September, 2000 issued by the  Reserve Bank of India, cases where an 
 exporters  has not been able to realize proceeds of shipment within the 
 prescribed period i.e. within six months from the date of exports, for reasons 
 beyond his control, the exporter may apply  to Reserve Bank of India in 
 requisite form for extension  of period of realization.  The assessee herein had 
 adopted that course of action and extension was given. 
 In these circumstances, in our view the ITAT rightly held that even if 
 the export proceeds were realized beyond the period of six months but within the 
 extended period, the said export had to be included in the total export turnover 
 for the purposes of computation under Section 80HHC of the Act.  The Tribunal 
 has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Kausales Exports (India) Vs. CIT, 
 240 ITR 108, Vikram Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 222 ITR 253 and judgments of 
 other High Courts as well. 
 Therefore, we are not agreeable to accept the plea of the Revenue in so 
 far as this ground of challenge is concerned. 
 As far as admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act is 
 concerned, we find that CIT (A) before admitting the additional evidence, had 
 obtained remand report from the Assessing Officer.  No doubt, the Assessing 
 Officer had opposed the admission of the aforesaid evidence which was in the 
 form of Certificate issued by the Indian Overseas Bank.  We do not find any 
 infirmity in adopting the procedure for admission the aforesaid additional 
 evidence which was material document touching upon the controversy raised in the 
 appeal. 
 Accordingly, we issue notice limited to the third ground namely whether 
 the Indian Overseas Bank is competent authority to issue the certificate or not. 
 Notice, returnable on 22nd December, 2010. 
 Since this issue is  in a short compass, the notice shall  indicate that 
 appeal shall be decided finally on the next date of hearing. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 SURESH KAIT, J. 
 DECEMBER  01, 2010 
 skb 
.
 A-3