Skip to content


Paramount Trading Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 228 and 244 of 1977
Judge
Reported in(1980)17CTR(All)57; [1980]124ITR55(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 35B and 154
AppellantParamount Trading Corporation
Respondentincome-tax Officer and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.P. Gupta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Gulati and ;A. Gupta, Advs.
Excerpt:
- - the assessee then went up to the commissioner in revision, which failed. 4. section 35b entitles an assessee to the deduction equal to the export markets development allowance provided several of the conditions mentioned in it arc satisfied. cit [1975]100itr347(all) ,a division bench of this court held that where an assessee had failed to claim a rebate allowable under section 84 in respect of a new undertaking in its return, it cannot be held that there was any mistake, much less a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified under section 154. in sharda prasad v. the assessee had failed to make a claim in the return......the assessee) referred to in clause (b), he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-third times the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year.'6. the language is 'he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction'. reading the two together it is obvious that a deduction under this section is allowable only when it has been claimed. 7. it has further been made clear by the form in which the return has to be filed. it is not disputed that there is a specific column meant for making a claim under section 35b. both the statutory provisions make it amply clear that a deduction in respect of the export markets development allowance can be allowed only where it has been specifically.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. The petitioner is an assessee. He carries on exclusively export trade. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the assessee forgot to make a claim under Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961, for export markets development allowance. No claim for this allowance was made in the return filed by the assessee for either of the two years. In due course, the ITO completed the assessments. The assessee felt aggrieved and filed an appeal. The same was disposed of by the AAC. Still aggrieved,he went up to the Tribunal, Before the Tribunal one of the pleas raised on behalf of the assessee was that the ITO was in error in not allowing the export markets development allowance. The Tribunal repelled this plea on the ground that it does not arise out of the orders passed by the authorities below. It, however, added that if so advised, the assessee could move the authorities by way of rectification and the ITO will do the needful in accordance with law. It appears that an application for rectification was made before the ITO even while the appeal was pending before the Tribunal. The ITO granted it in part. The assessee then made another application specifically complaining about the non-grant of this allowance in relation to some other items of expenditure. That application was dismissed. The assessee then went up to the Commissioner in revision, which failed. That is how he has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The Commissioner dismissed the revisions on the ground that the assessee had not made any claim for the export markets development allowance during the pendency of the assessment proceedings. The ITO was hence justified in refusing to rectify the assessment order. In this situation, s. 154 was not attracted because there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

3. Mr. S. P. Gupta, appearing for the assessee-petitioner, submits that the assessee had placed all the basic facts on which the export markets development allowance was in law allowable under Section 35B. The ITO was, in law, duty bound to allow it notwithstanding that the assessee had not made any specific claim in the returns filed by it. We are unable to agree.

4. Section 35B entitles an assessee to the deduction equal to the export markets development allowance provided several of the conditions mentioned in it arc satisfied. The assessee has to be a domestic company resident in India. The allowance is grantable if it is incurred after 29th February, 1968, on any type of expenditure referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1). Then the allowance is grantable subject to the provisions of this Section. Section 35B includes Sub-section (2), which provides:

'(2) Where a deduction under this section is qclaimed and allowed for any assessment year in respect of any expenditure referred to in Sub-section (1), deduction shall not be allowed in respect of such expenditure under any other provision of this Act for the same or any other assessment year.'

5. Sub-s. (2) specifically speaks of a deduction under Section 35B being claimed and allowed. Obviously, there is no implication that the ITO is under a duty to allow the deduction even where it has not been claimed. The language of Sub-section (1) also corroborates this interpretation. It says :

'35B. (1)(a) Where an assessee, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, has incurred after the 29th day of February, 1968, whether directly or in association with any other person, any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) referred to in Clause (b), he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-third times the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year.'

6. The language is 'he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction'. Reading the two together it is obvious that a deduction under this section is allowable only when it has been claimed.

7. It has further been made clear by the form in which the return has to be filed. It is not disputed that there is a specific column meant for making a claim under Section 35B. Both the statutory provisions make it amply clear that a deduction in respect of the export markets development allowance can be allowed only where it has been specifically claimed. In Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1975]100ITR347(All) , a Division Bench of this court held that where an assessee had failed to claim a rebate allowable under Section 84 in respect of a new undertaking in its return, it cannot be held that there was any mistake, much less a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified under Section 154. In Sharda Prasad v. CIT : [1975]100ITR373(All) , the same situation arose. A claim under Section 80J of the I.T. Act was allowable when made by filling in the prescribed column in the return. The assessee had failed to make a claim in the return. A Division Bench of this court held that the position is that the assessee had not made any claim for rebate under Section 80J in its return. Relying upon Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd.'s case : [1975]100ITR347(All) , it was held that it was not a case in which s. 154 could be attracted.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to Ascharajlal Ram Parkash v. CIT : [1973]90ITR477(All) . In that case, the question of allowing depreciation under Section 32 was involved. Depreciation under Section 32 was allowable in accordance with the provisions of s. 34 if the prescribed particulars had been furnished. The Bench held 'in what form prescribed particulars must be furnished or in what document' was not mentioned in s. 34. There was no requirement in that section that the prescribed particulars must be furnished in a particular document.

9. In that case, no question of rectification under Section 154 arose. The question was whether the ITO ought to have allowed the claim during the course of assessment proceedings even if the same had not been made initially in the return. In the present case, the situation is different. Here, rectification under Section 154 was claimed.

10. In Vithaldas v. ITO : [1969]71ITR204(All) , a Bench of this court observed that if a mistake has been brought to the notice of the officer by the assessee, it is the duty of the officer to rectify it. There can be no quarrel with the proposition but here no mistake apparent on the face of the record was committed by the officer. The mistake, if any, was by the assessee in not making the claim.

11. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner orally prayed for a certificate under Article 133(1) read with Article 134A of the Constitution. In our opinion, no substantial question of law, which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, arises. We, accordingly, reject this prayer.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //