COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JAY INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is a registered partnershipfirm engaged in manufacture and export of Isabgol and export and import of edible oil. The assessee had exported Isabgol products to foreign countries through commission agents. In the course of income tax assessment for the asst. yrs. 1978 79, 1979 80 and 1980 81, the assessee had claimed export markets development allowance or in other words, weighted deduction under S. 35B of the IT Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), in respect of certain items of expenditure including expenditure incurred by it by way of payment of interest to the bank on packing credit. The controversy involved in this reference is confined to interest paid to the batik on packing credit and, therefore, we need not set out other items of expenditure in respect of which the assessee had claimed weighted deduction. It appears that the assessee had maintained with its bank an export packing credit loan account and advances from this account were given to it for purchase of raw materials for manufacturing goods to be exported out of India. The assessee had paid interest on the loans advanced to it from this account known as "packing credit account". The assessee claimed that since it had incurred the expenditure by way of payment of interest to the bank on the said advances which were taken for purchasing raw materials, it was entitled to weighted deduction under S. 35B of the Act. According to the assessee, this expenditure was incurred in connection with its export business and, therefore, it was entitled to weighted deduction under cl. (b) of S. 35B(1) of the Act. The ITO, however, disallowed the assessee's claim which was made in the course of income tax assessment for the asst. yrs. 1978 79, 1979 80 and 1980 81. In the appeal, however, the AAC, relying on the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aayoee Corporation in Appeals Nos. 393/Bom/1980 and 672/Bom/1981, allowed the assessee's aforesaid claim. In the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short), relying on the aforesaid decision confirmed the view taken by the AAC. It is in the background of the above facts that the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :

(2.) THE expenditure which the assessee had incurred in making payment of interest to the bank on its packing credit account would not fall under sub cl. (iii) of cl. (b) of S. 35B(1). The assessee had taken loans or advances from the bank for purchase of raw materials to manufacture goods which were to be exported. Obviously, therefore, it is an expenditure in connection with the supply of goods outside India. It is not disputed that the expenditure which the assessee incurred was incurred in India. Expenditure incurred in India for supply of goods outside India would not qualify for weighted deduction as such expenditure is specifically excluded under sub cl. (iii) of S. 35B(1) (b). The aforesaid expenditure, in our opinion, does not fall under any of the other sub clauses of cl. (b) of S. 35B(1). That being the position, the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the said expenditure. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in confirming the view taken by the AAC. We may incidentally mention that the Tribunal has not stated the details of the interest paid to the bank. All that is stated is that interest was paid on what is described as "packing credit". What is meant by "packing credit" is also not explained by the Tribunal. We have, however, assumed that, as in similar other cases, the assessee must have taken loans and advances from the bank for purchasing raw materials to manufacture goods which were to be exported and it has paid interest on such loans or advances. Entries in regard to loans and advances taken by the assessee from the bank were made in the account known as "packing credit account".