ORDER
Shri C.L. Bokolia, Accountant Member
1. This appeal is preferred by the assesses against the order passed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts in holding that no Audit Report under section 80HHC was filed and in rejecting the claim of appellant that deductions under section 80HHC was allowable to the appellant.
2. The facts of this case are that assessee filed return declaring net income of Rs. 1,59,029 claiming therein deductions under section 80HHC amounting to Rs; 1,07,33,971.
While processing the return under section 143(1)(a), Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under section 80HHC on the ground that no certificate as required under section 80HHC(4) was attached along with the return. On receipt of intimation under section 143(1)(a), assessee moved an publication under section 154 along with a fresh certificate, as required under section 80HHC(4). This application of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no mention of filing of audit certificate along with the return and the claim of the assessee that the same was duly mentioned in Part V of the return is without any basis. The Assessing Officer, therefore, rejected the application filed by the assessee. Against this order of the Assessing Officer under section 154, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A).
3. The CIT(A), while dismissing the appeal, made following arguments :
“The facts and circumstances have been considered and the Income-tax records have been examined. After careful consideration, I am unable to agree with the assessee. To decide the issue following 3 questions have to be answered and all the three questions are highly debatable:–
1. Whether audit report was enclosed with the return of income or not,
2. If enclosed what should be the quantum of deduction under section 80HHC,
3. If not enclosed, can Assessing Officer disallow the claim under section 80HHC at the time of passing the order under section 143(1)(a).
On examining of the return of income, it is noticed that as per the acknowledgement issued by the I.T. Department, prepaid taxes, challans and six other documents, were enclosed. The Part V (Photo copy appended) of the return is full of cuttings and over writings. After cutting and over writings, the enclosures are, computation of income, balance-sheet of Lotus International under section 44AB, challan’ of taxes (4) and note on computation of income regarding surrender. All these documents are available with the return of: income. The enclosures which have been scored off are balance-sheet and P & L account of KJS Ahluwalia, K.P. Construction, Kamal Transport/Photo copies of LIC premium and all these enclosures are not attached with the return of income. It is not the claim of the assessed that these were filed with the return of income. In my views this very fact clearly shows that the cuttings were made by the assessee himself. It is the claim of the assessee that section 80HHC has been scored off after filing the return of income and section 44AB substituted. I am unable to agree as the hand-writing and the ink are the same. Further, there is no separate entry for report under section 44AB which is otherwise available along with the return of income. I have no doubt in my mind that this report was not enclosed with the return of income and I could make an intelligent reason for not filing this audit report. In his return of income, the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80HHC of Rs. 1,07,33,971 on the other hand the certificate from Anil Nagori and associates, CAs have worked out allowable deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 6,00,410.
If this certificate was filed along with of income, Assessing Officer would have restricted the deduction at Rs. 6,00,410, and order under section 143(1)(a) could have been passed accordingly. This would have resulted into enhancement of income by over Rs. 1 crore and substantial tax would have been raised against the assessee and the assessee could not have filed any appeal against such an order under section 143(1)(a) passed in accordance with the audit certificate, Assessee would not have left with any other option but to pay the demand of Income-tax. It appears to me that to ward off such a liability, this scheme was devised whereby various cuttings, over writings were made in Part V of the return of income so as to convert a simple issue into a disputed point. The idea was to continue with the dispute so that assessee was justified in not making the tax demand. The lesser claim certified by the auditor is on account of non-remittance of export proceeds. In my view, assessee was hoping that by the time the dispute would be sorted out in appeal etc., he would realise entire export proceeds and would be entitled for deduction under section 80HHC to the extent claimed in the return of income. The facts have been considered and in my view, the audit report was not filed. For arriving at this decision, I have gone through the case records, the return of income and all other circumstances, but the fact remains that the issue is debatable and two views are possible on the question whether the audit report was filed or not ? It is my personal view and I am fully convinced that report was not filed, but another view is also possible. The issue is highly debatable and in my view cannot be dealt by way of a rectification application.
Presuming that report was filed with the return of income, the question would be regarding quantum of deduction under section 80HHC. One view would be that entire deduction as claimed in the return of income should be allowed. Another possible view is, which in my view is correct, that only deduction, of Rs. 6,00,410 as per audit certificate was allowable. Any way the issue is debatable and cannot be dealt under section 154.
Presuming that return was not filed, the next question is that can Assessing Officer disallow deduction under section 80HHC during prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). Assessee has given a long list of cases including decision of IT AT, Jaipur Bench that Assessing Officer was not competent to reject the claim under section 80HHC in absence of audit report. I have gone through the decision and noted that in all those cases any fraudulent/or mala fide acts on the part of the assessee were absent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals AIR 1992 SC 152, a case relied by the assessee has observed in the last para that “we issue these directions in view of the admitted position that, apart from the technical objection that periods to which the applications related had since expired there was no other impediment for the grant of permission”. In all other cases relied upon by the assessee there is no dispute regarding quantum of the deduction and only issue was whether the provisions of section 80HHC(4) were procedural or mandatory. Even if the provisions were procedural, assessee has to follow the same and can escape the consequences only when the reasonable cause for not complying with the procedural law has been established,. but violation of procedural law with mala fide intention and to avail. 16 times higher deduction under section 80HHC cannot be condoned. Even otherwise Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CJT v. B.R. Sharma 232 ITR 614 has observed that; Divisional Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jaideep Industries 180 ITR has held that the provisions of section 80HHC(4) were mandatory. On the other hand, the Divisional Bench of Bombay High Court in Shivan and Electronics 209 ITR 63 has held these provisions as directory. Considering these two High Court’s judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the question of law existed and reference to High Court was called for. Clearly, the issue is highly debatable and two different High Courts have taken contrary views. Such an issue cannot be dealt by an order under section 154.”
Against this order of the CIT(A), assessee has come in appeal before us.
4. The main arguments of the Id. A.R. centre round that a certificate as required under section 80HHC(4) was duly filed along with the return, which was mentioned in Part V. The cuttings and over-writings in Part V of the return are made after filing of the return. It was also submitted that the Acknowledgement Slip issued by the Receipt Clerk is a testimony of this fact. It was submitted that at the inner page of the return, DCIT, Special Range, Cuttack has stamped, which reads :
“Processed under section 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on a total income/ loss of Rs. 1,59,029.”
It was also submitted that the assessment records were transferred from Jaipur to Cuttack and back to Jaipur and, therefore, it is quite possible that the audit report might have been detached and lost somewhere. The Id. A.R. further argues that filing of certificate from the Auditor under section 80HHC(4) is not mandatory but directory in nature. It was argued that while moving an application under section 154, assessee filed further certificate from the Auditors and as per CBDT Circular Nos. 669 & 689, the Assessing Officer should have accepted the ‘certificate and rectified the intimation already sent by him. By not accepting this rectification application, the Assessing Officer has flouted the contents of the Circular No. 689. The ld. A.R. further argues that filing of the Audit Report is not mandatory but directory in nature and for that, reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd v. Dy. CIT AIR 1992 SC 152 and also Murali Export House v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 257 (Cal).
He further relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
v. B.R. Sharma [1998] 232 ITR 614, Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd v, Dy. CIT
[1999] 235 ITR 484 (Gau.), where it is said that omission of any document
patent from Part V of the return, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to
treat as income. It was also argued that under the similar facts and
circumstances of the case, the Calcutta Bench of the ITAT in the case of
Dhanoolal & Sons v. Dy. CIT [1996] 57 ITD 426 held that departmental
authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee under
section 154 on the basis of evidence filed subsequently.
5. The ld. A.R. further argues that under the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the, Jaipur Bench of the ITAT has allowed the appeals in the cases of Associated Stones, Kota Ltd in ITA No. 197/JP/92, cited at 21 Tax World 138, Mahendra Kumar Aganval in ITA No. 664/JP/97, reported at 21 Tax World 445 and Silverwing, 21 Tax World 614. It was further submitted that even the CIT(A) has held that filing of the Audit Report under section 80HHC(4) is not mandatory in the cases of Novelty Garments [Appeal No. 19/97-98/JPR dated, 7-4-1997] and Paras Chand Mehta [Appeal No. 111 /99-2000 dated 2-8-1999].:It is not clear as to how the CIT(A) )has made an exception in the ease of the appellant.
6. The Id. A.R. further argues that even if the certificate was hot available on record, this is a defect in the return and before computing any income, the Assessing Officer should have provided an opportunity in terms of section 139(9) to rectify such defect. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Norma Cables (P.) Ltd. [1992] 195 ITR (St.) [SLP (Civil) No, 7186 of 1992] 141. It was further argued that under the circumstances whether any adjustment can be made is a highly debatable issue and the Assessing Officer is not empowered to make any adjustment in regard to any debatable issue and debatable issue is not covered under section 143(1)(a). Reference made to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Har Saran Led v. Assessing Officer [1998] 229 ITR 46′. Lastly, it was submitted that the conduct of the assessee clearly proves the fact that it is a 10096 export unit claiming deduction under section 80HHC in earlier years and evening the computation of total income, such deductions were claimed. The ld. A.R. strongly opposed the enlarging the scope of application under section 154 by the CIT(A) on the ground that quantum would have been worked out much smaller than what was claimed in the computation sheet or alleged certificate. It was also submitted that how a person, who made exports, earned foreign exchange, claimed deduction in the computation of total income under section 80HHC, would not file the certificate, though special audit report under section 44AB enclosed along with the return. It was, therefore, finally submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances of the case and highly illegal and unjustified.
7. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and further argued that no positive evidence in regard to filing of the certificate is placed on record and the reliance placed on Part V of the Return goes against the assessee. There is no reason why anybody from the Department should make any cutting or over-writing in Part V of the return. Even he pointed out that the cuttings and over-writings are in the same ink and same hand-writing and are also not supported by any signature. The assessee has not filed any appeal against intimation sent under section 143(l)(a). He also points out that as per the Audit Report, the claim under section 80HHC works out to Rs. 6 lacs only. He also draws our attention to the comments from page 1817 Vol. 2 of Chaturvedi & Pithisaria’s. He stressed the point that filing of the certificate from the Chartered Accountant is mandatory in nature and hence the action of the CIT(A) is most reasonable and justified.
8. We have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. Before arriving at any conclusion, we consider it reasonable to go through the case laws relied upon by the rival parties.
80HHC benefit could not be denied even if as assumed by the Id. Assessing Officer, Auditors certificate under section 80HHC(4) not attached with the return and therefore, the addition/disallowance could not legally be made by way of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a).
Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania, [1992] 196 ITR 552 (Bom.) :
“In absence of any specific provision in the Income-tax Act which disallows a deduction because a specific document specified in that section is not annexed to the return, the Income-tax Officer cannot, under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 143(1)(a), disallow a claim or a deduction merely because, in his view, adequate evidence in support of such a claim or deduction is not before him. He can disallow a claim
for deduction only if he is satisfied, on the basis of the material which is before him that the assessee is not entitled to such a deduction. The use of the phrase “prima facie admissible” in clause (if) to the proviso and “prima facie inadmissible” in clause (iii) to the proviso, also lend support to this interpretation. If anything more is read into the power to make adjustments under section 143(1)(a), such power would be grossly arbitrary and unreasonable and in total violation of the principles of natural justice, because section 143(1)(a) does not provide for any notice being given to the assessee, nor does it provide for any hearing being given to the assessee before disallowing the claim made by him.’
S.R.F. Charitable Trust v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 95 (Delhi) and Kamal Textiles v, ITO [1991] 139 ITR 339′ (MP) followed.
Tanna Exportsv. M.G. Kamat, Asstt. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 2192 (Bom.) held as under:–
‘Recalculation of adjustment under section 80HHC of the I.T. Act is not permissible under section 43(1)(a)”
Modern Fibotex India Ltd v. Dy. CIT[1995] 212 ITR 496 (Cal.) at page 497
it was held as under :–
“The power under section 143(1)(a) though described as a prima facie determination is not a temporary one in the sense that an interlocutory order is passed which is subject to a final order on further scrutiny. The intimation as far as the Assessing Officer is concerned is final and it entails immediate and drastic consequences unless corrected or revised by a higher authority under section 154 or 264, as the case may be. The exercise of power under section 143(1)(a)of the Act is, therefore, required to be scrutinised carefully and kept strictly within the bounds of the statute, any dispute being resolved in favour of the assessee.”
God Granites v. CBDT[1996] 218 ITR 298 (Kar.) at page 229, it had held
as under:–
“Under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) the Assessing Officer can make an adjustment in the income, by disallowing the deduction claimed in the return, only if it is prima facie inadmissible, on the basis of the information available in such return or accounts or documents accompanying the return. The fact that, on ultimate analysis, the assessee may not be entitled for the deduction claimed from the total income does not mean that recourse can be had to disallowance under section 143(1)(a), dispensing with hearing and denying opportunity to the assessee to challenge the assessment under the guise of effecting an adjustment under section 143(1)(a), the Assessing Officer cannot decide debatable issues.”
Parikh Engg. & Body Building Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1999] 238 ITR 554′ (Pat.), Ranchi Bench :–
“It is well-settled that under section 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, the Assessing
Officer has to proceed on the basis of the return (and the accounts or
documents accompanying the same) as it is; he can only make
corrections of arithmetical errors or adjustments which are ‘prima
facie admissible’ ‘Prima facie’ literally means ‘on the face of it’. Hence,
while allowing adjustments which are prima facie admissible and
disallowing adjustments which are prima facie inadmissible, he has to
confine himself to the materials before him in the return etc. There is,
therefore, no question of rejecting the return and ‘re-determining’ the
taxable income in a different manner applying a particular provision of
law.”
Murli Export House’s case (supra) in which it was held as under ;–
“Only where it is evident from the return which is filed along with the documents in support thereof that a claim of the assessee is not admissible can an adjustment be made under clause (III) of the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If proof in support of the claim is not furnished by the assessee, then for lack of proof no disallowance or adjustment can be unilaterally made. The only option which is open to the Assessing Officer in such a case is to require the assessee to furnish the proof But he cannot unilaterally make a disallowance by seeking to invoke the provisions of the first proviso to section” 143(1) (a) of the Act.”
JKS Employees Welfare Fund v. ITO [1993] 199 ITR 7652 at page 769 Rajasthan High Court had held that whether the provisions of a particular section are applicable or not, will not be covered under this section. It was held at page 770 that “If any different interpretation is sought to be taken on which there could be two views or the information in respect thereof is not available in the return, then no such disallowance can be made.” This judgment of Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Officers working in Rajasthan.
Mrs. Sudha Sharma v, ITO[1993] 44 FTP 351 (Delhi). At page 352, it had held as under :–
“Though under sub-section (4) of section 80HHC furnishing of a certificate from an accountant along with’ the return of income is a condition precedent for allowance of the claim on account of exports, the stringency and mandatory nature provided under that section has to be viewed in the light of the purpose intended to be served. The mere fact that it is a statutory condition, does not matter one way or the other. It would be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they are intended to serve. Some of the conditions may be substantive.
mandatory and based on consideration of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. Filing of the certificate along with the return though statutory, belongs to the area of procedure, thus this condition for the grant of exemption could not be so strictly construed so as to prevent the assessee of his legitimate claim of deduction.
Moreover, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Mangalore
Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner [1991] 21 Tax Gazette
193, since the assessee had filed the certificate as required under section
80HHC(4) before the completion of the assessment, the assessee was
eligible to claim deduction on account of exports.”
To the same effect is also the ratio in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj.).
In the absence of Auditor’s certificate under section 80HHC(4) and various cuttings/erasers assumed by the Assessing Officer to have been made by the appellant which were not even signed by him, the return of income filed by the appellant being defective, the Assessing Officer was obliged to intimate the defect to the assessee by giving an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of 15 days which having not been done, the prima facie adjustment as made by the Assessing’ ‘Officer in the intimation issued by him was illegal. Following case laws are relied upon:-
Seeyan Plywoods v. ITO[1999] 238 ITR 395 (Ken) at p. 396, it was held as
under:–
“The actual assessment by the Income-tax Officer was made only after the matter was remanded, the Income-tax Officer not having given fifteen days time under section 139(9) of the Act to cure the defect from the date of issue of notice to that effect, the petitioner” was denied his valuable right and any order passed within fifteen days from the date of issue of notice was deemed to have caused prejudice to the petitioner under the law. Since the assessment was finalised before the expiry of the statutory period to file objections, the impugned orders could not be sustained.
In the case of Norms Cables (P.) Ltd (supra) was dismissed against the order dated 17-5-1990 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.C. No. 59 of 1990, rejecting a reference application, on, the question whether the Commissioner was not right in revising the assessment under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, where the officer had accepted the unsigned and unverified return filed by, the assessee and passed an assessment order on that basis, and, whether the assessee should have been given as opportunity under section 139(9.) to remove the defects.
CIT v. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust [1992] 195 ITR 825′, Calcutta High Court, at page 826, it was held that defects specified in sub-section (9) of section 139 are illustrative and not exhaustive. If an
audit report was not filed along with the return, the exemption as available to such trust under sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the audit report.
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd v. Dy, CIT [1993] 202 ITR 93 Allahabad High Court. At page 94 it was held as under :–
“That the return filed by the petitioner was defective and hence invalid since the profit and loss account submitted along with the return was provisional in nature.”
9-10. The appellant had actually filed an Audit Report under section 80HHC(4) along with the return as stands proved from direct and circumstantial evidence. In the said Audit Report under section 80HHC(4), the Auditors have clearly clarified that the claim under section 80HHC(1) at Rs. 6,00,410 had been determined on the basis of sale proceeds received by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange which clearly means that balance sate proceeds were yet to be received in convertible foreign exchange by the appellant. In the Allahabad High Court in the case of Azad Tobacco Factory (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[1996] 225 ITR 1002′ at page 1003, had held as under:
‘Section 80HHC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, entitles an assessee resident in India, engaged in the business of export of specified goods or merchandise, to a deduction of the profits derived out of such export in computing the total income. Sub-section (2)(a) of the same section provides a condition to such entitlement in respect of goods or merchandise other than those specified in clause (b) to the extent that the sale proceeds there of are ‘received in, or brought into, India’ by the assessee within a period of six months from the end of the previous year, but the said, restriction is not absolute, i.e., where the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that the assessee was unable to do so within the said period of six months. For reasons beyond his control, he may allow further time.
A plain reading of section 80HHC does not indicate that any application has to be made therefore. Unlike various, other sections including sections 11(2) and 12A, section 80HHC does not specify such application nor have any rules or form been prescribed for it. The time limit mentioned in section 80HHC(2)(a) is not a limitation for, claiming deduction but it is the right to claim deduction which is available if the sale proceeds are received within a period of six months: Section 80HHC(2)(a) does not contemplate the making of any application by: the assessee within a period of six ‘months either for availing’ if the deduction with respect to sale proceeds received in or brought into India as contemplated therein within a period of six’ months from the end of the previous year or for the purpose of invoking the power of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to allow further time in case the assessee is unable to receive in bring into, India the sale proceeds for reasons beyond his control.”
At page 1087, the Hon’ble High Court had further held as under :–
“On the other hand, it is our considered view that the deductibility claimed in the return is to be decided in computing the total income in case the six month-period has expired before the assessee received or brought into India the sale proceeds, in that event, it is for the assessing authority to place the same before the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner if the assessee proposes to satisfy that he was unable to do so for reasons beyond his control. Inasmuch as the assessing authority having not been invested with the power granted under subsection (2)(a) for allowing further period, he can neither refuse nor deal with the same. Therefore, it is imperative on its part to’ place the same before the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. The assessee may also bring the fact to the notice of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, but in that event, no time limit can be applied except that the claim is to be made in the return to be filed.”
In view of the above Allahabad High Court judgment also the Assessing Officer was legally not justified in adding Rs. 1,07,33,971 claim as exempt under section 80HHC as a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax-Act. At any rate, the Audit Report under section 80HHC(4) could ‘also be filed later on, which was filed along with the application under section 154 of the I.T. Act before the Assessing Officer as permitted by the CBDT vide Circular No. 689, dated 24-8-1994, read with CBDT Circular No. 669. Further before passing of the impugned order dated 30-6-1999 under section 154, the CIT, Jaipur having passed an order dated 22-3-1999 under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the I.T. Act i.e., much earlier the same could not be ignored.
11. It is by now a settled proposition of law that Benevolent Circulars are binding even if they deviate from the legal position and are issued subsequently because by the issue of such circulars, rigour of the law is relaxed by giving administrative relief. Therefore even if such circulars are relief on for the first time before the High Courts during the course of hearing, the assessee will be entitled to the benefit of the circulars. Such circulars supplant the law. It was so held in the following cases :
K.P. Varghese v. ITO [l98l] 131 ITR 597′ (SC)
CIT v. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1988] 170 ITR 372 (Ker.);
B.S. Bajaj & Sons v. CIT[1996] 222 ITR 418 (Punj. & Har.) and
Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar v. ITAT [1997] 223 ITR 192
(Raj.).
Section 80HHC provisions being incentive provisions to benefit the assesses have to be interpreted/construed liberally as held in the following cases:–
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 1883 (SC)
CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323′ (SC)
Smt. Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT[I985] 156 ITR 4972 (SC).
The case laws decided by various High Courts and relied upon by the ld. A/R clearly prove the fact that Assessing Officer was not empowered under section 143(1)(a) to make adjustment of disallowing the claim of the appellant under section 80HHC. Even if the said certificate from the Auditors was not filed along with the return, this type of adjustment cannot be made by the Assessing Officer. The Circular No. 689 issued by the CBDT being benevolent in nature was binding upon the Assessing Officer. This circular also helps the assessee. Besides order under section 80HHC(2)(a) was passed by the CIT, Jaipur on 22-3-1999 whereas the order under section 154 was passed on a later date but it is strange to note that the Assessing Officer has even ignored the order passed by the CIT, Jaipur. The Audit Report specifying the amount of rebate allowable at Rs. 6,00,410 was on the basis of the amount received in the country in convertible foreign exchange when the Auditor audited the accounts. The Auditor, therefore, justifiably issued the certificate only to this extent but after the order of the CIT, Jaipur controversy in regard to the total amount to be considered for purposes of rebate under section 80HHC totaled to Rs. 1,07,33,971, which was claimed as per the computation of total income while filing the return of income. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal of the appellant in full and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit under section 80HHC to the assessee,
12. In the result, the appeal stands fully allowed.