JUDGMENT
N.K. Agrawal, J.
1. These are two petitions under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), by the CIT, Patiala. These petitions, relating to the same assessee for two assessment years, viz., 1984-85 and 1985-861 seek a direction to the Tribunal, Chandigarh, to refer the following question of law to this Court for opinion :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) who had directed the AO to compute the deductions under ss. 80G and 80HH as per sub-s. (2) of s. 80VVA and then restrict the same to 70 per cent and carry forward the balance as per sub-s. (4) of s. 80VVA when there is no positive income in the year after setting off the B. F. deficiencies ?”
2. Assessee is a private limited company deriving income from the manufacture and sale of paper. While completing assessments for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 under s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO allowed deductions under ss. 80G and 80HH. However, certain additions and disallowances were made by the AO in both the years. Assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who, while dealing with the appeal for the asst. yr. 1984-85, deleted the disallowance made under s. 43B and directed the AO to recompute the allowance under s. 80HH as a result of the relief granted to the assessee under s. 43B. In the appeal for the asst. yr. 1985-86, the appellate authority granted relief to the assessee in respect of the several additions and disallowances made by the AO.
The AO, while giving effect to the appellate orders, did not allow deductions under ss. 80G and 80HH in both the assessment years though such deductions had been allowed under the original assessment orders. The assessee went in appeal again. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeals and directed the AO to compute deductions as per s. 80VVA(2), restrict the same to 70 per cent and carry forward the balance as per s. 80VVA(4) of the IT Act. The Tribunal upheld the appellate orders in both the assessment years.
3. It is not in dispute that deductions were allowed by the AO while finalising the assessments originally. The assessee had gone in appeal against certain other additions and disallowances. There was no grievance against the allowance made under ss. 80G and 80HH. The appellate orders did not withdraw the allowance already made by the AO under ss. 80G and 80HH. The AO, therefore, wrongly withdrew the allowances already granted by him under ss. 80G and 80HH. He, was only required to give effect to the appellate orders and not to withdraw the allowance, which were not the subject of appeal. He had only to recompute those allowances, if necessary.
From the facts as arising from the order of the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal correctly held that no valid reason existed to withdraw the allowances already granted to the assessee. Therefore, no question of law arises.
4. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed.
5. No costs.