HARBANS LAL Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that weighted deduction was not admissible with reference to stationery, printing and postage expenses on the ground that they were relatable to section 35B(1)(b)(iii) which was not operative for the assessment year in question, having been omitted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 and whether the said expenditure was allowable under section 35B(1)(b)(i)?'

(2.) THE present reference relates to the assessment year 1982 -83.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The applicant is a registered firm, which derives its income from the export of brassware. It claimed weighted deduction, inter alia, on the expenditure on stationery and printing and on postage, which was disallowed by the assessing officer. However, in appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim up to 50 per cent. In further appeal, the Tribunal took the view that these claims were relatable to section 35B(1)(b)(iii) and could not be allowed as sub -clause (iii) was not operative for the assessment year in question, having been omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980. As the provision under which the claim of weighted deduction on the expenditure on stationery, printing and postage could have been allowed has already been omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, the deduction was not admissible. So far as sub -clause (i) is concerned, we find that the items mentioned herein do not fall under the said sub -clause and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly disallowed the claim.