AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.—This is an application u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a direction that the Tribunal should be asked to frame the following question of law and refer it to us. The question is as follows :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that raw cotton is not an agricultural primary commodity specified in clause (b)(i) of section 80HHC(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in consequently holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC ?"
The question relates to the deduction to be granted to the assessee u/s 80HHC(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as then in force. This section deals with deduction in respect of profits retained for export business. The section does not apply to good or merchandise specified in clause (b) of section 80HHC(2)(i). Clause (b)(i) is as follows :
"Agricultural primary commodities, not being produce of plantations".
The petitioner has exported raw cotton. The Tribunal, in its order dated March 2, 1989, has held that raw cotton is a produce of plantation and hence is not covered by clause (b)(i). The Tribunal has relied upon the meaning of the word "plantation" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary to mean :
"assemblage of planted growing plants, especially trees, estate on which cotton, tobacco, etc. is cultivated."
Raw cotton being a produce of cotton plantation is not covered by clause (b)(i). The Tribunal has not gone into the question whether raw cotton should or should not be considered as an agricultural primary commodity because, even if it is so considered, it would still be excluded from clause (b)(i).
In these circumstances, the question referred to us does not at all arise from the order of the Tribunal. In any case, the answer to the question is obvious. Hence, the application is rejected.
No order as to costs.