| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 1460 1991 SLD 1460 (1991) 187 ITR 675 |
A.S. ANAND, C.J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
M. Qasim Bros.
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 264, read with section 35B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of other orders - Before ITO assessee did not claim weighted deduction qua export of paper machie articles - Before re-visional authorities also it could not substantiate its claim - Whether Commissioner was justified in rejecting assessee's application - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-firm, an income-tax assessee, derived income from the sale of paper - machie articles. Following its assessment it filed a revision petition, claiming weighted deduction under section 35B, which was rejected. On writ the assessee contended that it was entitled to certain exemption as weighted deduction under section 35B since the firm was exporting paper - machie articles but the authorities had failed to give the same. HELD Before the assessing authority, admittedly, no claim was made for grant of exemption as weighted deductions under section 35B. The petitioner-firm was required to put in a specific claim for weighted deductions supported by documentary evidence before the ITO. It failed to do so. Unless, the party had placed any material before the ITO, he could not be expected to grant the deductions. The assessee even failed to claim the deduction before the revisional authority which had granted full and proper opportunity to the petitioner-firm to establish its case by following the rule of natural justice but he could not point out from the record any specific item which was covered by section 35B so as to enable the petitioner-firm to get the weighted deduction. The Commissioner's order 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 section 264 and had also followed the rules of natural justice. The writ petition under the circumstances failed and was to be dismissed. Thus, the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to weighted deduction. K.N. Raina for the Petitioner. ORDER 1. The petitioner-firm is an income-tax assessee which derives its business income mainly from the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492