TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (9) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27-9-1976 on a total income of Rs. 3,05,488. Later a reassessment was made u/s. 147(b) on 20-3-1980 adding a sum of Rs. 250 claimed as donation and a sum of Rs. 1,300 being expenses incurred for a guest house to determine the total income at Rs. 3,07,040. The assessee appealed on 24-4-1980 to contend that these two additions were untenable. The assessee also filed additional grounds of appeal on 24-9-1980 claiming that the assessee was entitled to deduction under sec. 35B in respect of an expenditure of Rs. 7,69,599. The CIT (Appeals) found that the disallowance of Rs. 250 was conceded and the disallowance of Rs. 1,300 was unjustified. He also found that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction in respect of an expenditure of Rs. 1,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... premium 3,836.39 Bank commission towards export items only 38,451.06 T.A. to staff to procure the export items to port 12,546.23 Electricity charges 1,598.20 Godown Insurance-stored for export items only 4,578.75 Advertisement charges towards publicity for export 1,746.18 Stitching charges for garments 2,815.65 Madras Yarn Merchants Association 450.00 Federation of Indian Export Organization 300.00 Money order sent to Indian Export Director 60.00 Miscellaneous Export ECGC Premium 5,719.27 Subscriptions Texprocil 1,335.00 Indian Yarn Trade Federation 150.95 Bombay Silk & Rayon Textiles Export Promotion Council 750.00 Hindustan Chamber of Commerce 300.00 Tamilnadu Handloom Industry Trade Associ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the original assessment proceedings. The revenue relies on the decision in the case of Dr. Ravishanker Tapa v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 81 (MP) to the effect that the reassessment is concerned only with the escapement and the decision in the case of Chettinad Corpn. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 57 (Mad.) to the effect that the claims rejected in the original assessment cannot be re-agitated in the reassessment proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in the cases of S. Inder Singh Gill v. CIT [1963] 47 ITR 284 (Bom.) and Sir Shadi Lal & Sons v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 453 (All.) to contend that the reassessment was made only for the benefit of the revenue and the income originally determined cannot be varied to the benefit of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s [1988] 173 ITR 42. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that we have to uphold the objection of the Revenue. No doubt, the assessee is entitled to the decision u/s. 35B as we have found above and if that deduction is granted then the income of the assessee should be determined at a figure much less than that originally assessed. However, the assessee had not made that claim in the original assessment proceedings. Again it is unfortunate that even though the information that the assessee was engaged wholly in export business and its expenditure was eligible for deduction u/s. 35B was available on record, the assessee was not advised to make such a claim. In this connection, it may be re-called that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal assessment and is decided against the assessee, such a question cannot ordinarily be allowed to be raised again in the course of the reassessment proceedings. But if no such question was raised in the original assessment proceeding, then there could be no prohibition against the assessee raising such a question relating to computation of the amount of tax payable by him at the time of reassessment. But the facts of that case show that the question which was raised in the reassessment proceedings related to the claim for deduction of the expenditure in respect of the escaped income. In the present case, however, we are concerned with the deduction which has nothing to do with the escaped income which was sought to be taxed in the reasses....