IMPORTANT POINT
Section 80-O would not be applicable unless supplying technical assistance is established and product developed on such assistance is sold in the market.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in I.T. Appeal No. 1198 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 1603/D/2002.

2. Brief facts:

(a) The Appellant herein filed return disclosing income of Rs. 57,40,360/- for the Assessment Year (AY) 1997-98 while claiming deduction of Rs. 58,87,045/- under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) on a gross foreign exchange receipt of Rs. 1,17,74,090/- received from Sumitomo Corporation, Japan. Sumitomo Corporation was interested in supplying dies for manufacturing of body parts to Indian automobile manufacturers and entered into a contract with the Appellant under which the services of the Appellant herein were engaged by using his specialized commercial and industrial knowledge about the Indian automobile industry. Sumitomo Corporation also agreed to pay remuneration at the rate of 5% of the contractual amount between Sumitomo Corporation and its Indian customers on sales of its products so developed. The Appellant claimed to have supplied to Sumitomo Corporation the industrial and commercial knowledge, information about market conditions and Indian manufacturers of automobiles and also technical assistance as required by the Corporation.

(b) The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny by the Income Tax Department, Delhi and in response to notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, the Appellant along with others attended the assessment proceedings from time to time justifying the claim under Section 80-O of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 27.03.2000 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act assessed the total income at Rs. 1,18,43,060/- and determined the sum payable by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 43,25,960/-. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2000, the Appellant preferred an appeal being No. 272/01-02 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 20.02.2002, partly allowed the appeal and held that the Appellant is entitled to deduction under Section 80-O of the IT Act. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2002, the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 10.10.2005, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Appellant approached the High Court by filing I.T. Appeal No. 1198 of 2006 challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2005 which was dismissed on 13.12.2006 by a Division Bench of the High Court.

(c) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.12.2006, the Appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the Respondent and perused the records.

Point(s) for consideration:-

4. The sole point for consideration before this Court is whether the Appellant is entitled to deduction under Section 80-O of the IT Act under the facts and circumstances of the present case?

Rival contentions:-

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant has fulfilled all the conditions as envisaged under Section 80-O of the IT Act inasmuch as he was providing specialized, industrial and commercial knowledge relating to the Indian automobile industry and also detailed information about the industry in India. Learned counsel further contended that the Appellant is enjoying a very good professional reputation amongst manufacturers and traders and having a vast experience of the Indian automobile industry. The services so rendered by the Appellant were in fact rendered and the payment was received for having rendered those services. Learned counsel finally contended that the High Court committed an error in con