ORDER
The case has been listed before the court for appropriate orders as despite service of notice on the petitioner-assessed by affixture, paper books have not been filed. Even the court notice sent to the counsel for the petitioner has been received back with the report that the counsel is not representing the petitioner any longer. Even today, no one appears for the assessed. Accordingly, we have heard the learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.
2. At the instance of the assessed, the Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘C’, New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the following questions, arising out of IT Appeal No. 981 (Delhi) of 1982, pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75, for our opinion :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure on packing for exports, forwarding expenses for exports and insurance of such goods while in transit ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest amount on the factory type account and the interest on packing credit ?”
2. Since we find that answers to both the questions stand concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) and of this court in Gedore Tools (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 268 (SC) and CIT v. International Exporters (1998) 233 ITR 23 (Del), we consider it unnecessary to state the facts.
3. Following the ratio of the said decisions, both the questions are answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.
4. The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.