Jammu And Kashmir H.C : The petitioner firm is an income-tax assessee which derives its business income mainly from the sale of papier mache articles.

Counsel Appeared

R.N. Kaul, for the Petitioner : K.N. Raina, for the Respondent

BY THE COURT :

The petitioner firm is an income-tax assessee which derives its business income mainly from the sale of papier mache articles. It filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1975- 76. The ITO, A Ward, Srinagarrespondent No. 2 herein, passed an assessment order under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), and determined the taxable income of the petitioner-firm as Rs. 1,24,904. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the CIT , Amritsar, respondent No. 1 herein, under s. 264 of the Act. The CIT, after hearing the representative (chartered accountant) of the petitioner firm, rejected the revision petition, vide order impugned through this writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner, as projected by Mr. R. N. Kaul, its learned counsel in this Court, is that the petitioner- firm was entitled to certain exemptions as weighted deductions under s. 35B of the Act since the firm was mainly exporting papier mache articles, but the authorities had failed to give it that benefit which has rendered both the orders bad.

Mr. K. N. Raina has, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner had failed to substantiate its plea before the revisional authority and it cannot avoid the order through a Writ petition particularly when the order was passed after hearing the parties.

Before the assessing authority, admittedly, no claim was made for grant of exemption as weighted deduction under s. 35B of the Act. The petitioner-firm was required to put in a specific claim for weighted deduction supported by documentary evidence before the ITO. It failed to do so. According to Mr. Kaul, the failure to lay such claim before the ITO was due to the negligence of the party, but that could not absolve the ITO from granting the deductions. The, argument is misconceived. Unless the party has placed any material before the ITO, he could not be expected to grant the deductions. The petitioner-firm even failed to claim the deductions or exemptions before the revisional authority. The revisional authority had granted full and proper opportunity to the petitioner-firm to establish its case. Neither was any claim regarding the deductions or exemptions made before the revisional authority nor any evidence (documentary or oral) placed before him to justify the plea of the petitioner-firm that it was entitled to certain exemptions or weighted deduction. The impugned order records that weighted deduction under s. 35B could be allowed only in respect of “specific items” which are covered by the various sub-clauses of s. 35B (1)(b) but that during the hearing of the revision petition, the representative of the petitioner-firm could not point out any particular expenditure which was covered by the provisions of any of the various sub -clauses of s. 35B(1)(b). Even during the hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out from the record any specific item which was covered by any of the sub-clauses of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act so as to enable the petitioner-firm to get the weighted deduction.

The impugned order, under the facts and circumstances of the case, does not suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. It was passed after giving opportunity to the party to prove its case and a full hearing as envisaged by law. The revisional Court acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of s. 264 of the Act and had also followed the rules of natural justice. The writ petition, under the circumstances, fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

[Citation : 187 ITR 675]