NARINDER KUMAR ARORA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to show cause why the petition be not admitted.

(2.) MR . R.C. Pandey accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) THE main grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the claim of the petitioner for deduction under S. 80HHC of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, has not been allowed by the competent authority. The petitioners filed a return with respect to the asst. year 1994 -95 on 9th Nov., 1994, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,91,991 as deduction under S. 80HHC of the IT Act, in respect of the export turnover of the company. The claim appears to have not been allowed on the ground that the money was not received within the statutory period of six months. The dispute centres around the issue as to whether the petitioner was required to make an application for extension of time for claiming deduction under S. 80HHC(2)(a) of the Act and if so, whether it was to be made before the expiry of the period of six months or it could be made subsequently also. In this connection, besides relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Azad Tobacco Factory (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 140 CTR (All) 476 : (1997) 225 ITR 1002 (All) : TCS25.2576, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the provision contained under S. 80HHC. He has particularly relied on the words "........be allowed in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise". On the basis of the said provision it is submitted that it is the function of the CIT to allow deduction and no separate application for claiming deduction has to be made. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the assessee is required to make an application otherwise how is the CIT to know the reasons justifying extension of time. The relevant provision dealing with the question of extension of time as applicable during the assessment year in question was :