JUDGMENT
J.N. Sarma, J.
1. The questions referred in this case are as follows :
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 is within the jurisdiction ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the rovisions of Sections 80HH(5) and 80-I(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate ribunal is justified in upholding that the assessee’s company ought to have submitted audited account in support of its claims for deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I in respect of its new industrial undertaking from its gross total income ?”
2.The same question arose before a Division Bench reported in CIT v.Technotive Eastern P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 253, 255 (Gauhati), wherein the question was as follows :
(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that no separate accounts are required to be maintained for claiming deductions under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? ”
3.This court held that the law does not require that a separate account to be maintained for claiming deduction under Sections 80-I(7) and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proviso to Sub-section (1) shall not help the Revenue in the case as the petitioner-appellant herein is a company. So question No. 2 is answered in favour of the petitioner/appellant.
4. In view of the decision of question No. 2 question No. 1 also is answered in favour of the petitioner/appellant.
5. We have heard Mr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. U. Bhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent.