JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J.
1. These are three cross-references by the Revenue and the assessed. Since a common statement of the case has been drawn up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B” (for short “the Tribunal”), these references are being disposed of by this common order.
2. We have heard Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. No one appears on behalf of the assessed.
3. The Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the following questions for our opinion.
4. Questions at the instance of the assessed for the assessment year 1977-78 :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was not entitled to relief under Section 35B in respect of the expenditure incurred on shipping and forwarding, audit fee, insurance, filing fee, legal and professional fees, charity and donation and miscellaneous expenses ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed was not entitled to deduction in respect of whole of the expenses on the following items :
salary to persons engaged in handling export business, rent, printing and stationery, postage, telex, telephone and telegram, electricity and water, traveling, repair and maintenance of car, general repairs to buildings, bank charges, salary to the managing director, meeting fees, advertisement, bank interest, guarantee commission and depreciation of car ?”
5. Question at the instance of the Department :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the claim of assessed under Section 35B ?”
6. Question at the instance of the assessed for the assessment year 1978-79 :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, while setting aside the order of the authorities below, the Tribunal was right in directing that the relief on different items of expenditure claimed in the grounds of appeal and additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessed be restricted in terms of their order for the assessment year 1977-78 ?”
7. The references pertain to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. As is evident from the format of the questions, the issue raised by the Revenue and the assessed relates to the assessed’s claim for weighted deduction under
section 35B of the Act, in respect of the various items of expenditure, which include the expenses incurred on shipping and forwarding, audit fee, insurance, legal and professional charges, charity and donation and handling of export business carried on by the assessed. Since, in our opinion, the answer to the questions referred stands concluded by the decisions of the apex court, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.
8. Suffice it to say that while deciding the issue in favor of the assessed, the Tribunal had mainly relied on its Special Bench decision in the case of J. Hem-chand and Company (Bombay, I. T. A. Nos. 3255 and 3330 of 1976-77). In CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 171, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that in order to get deduction under Section 35B of the Act, the assessed has to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes set out-in Clause (b) of Section 35B(1) of the Act. There cannot be any blanket allowance of the expenditure and if the expenditure does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in the sub-clauses, weighted deduction cannot be allowed. In a nutshell, what has been held is that every expenditure, on which weighted deduction has been claimed, has to be examined in the light of the provisions in the various sub-clauses and the onus to prove that he is entitled to weighted deduction under the said section lies on the assessed. It is pertinent to note that in the said decision the apex court has disapproved the logic of the view taken by the Special Bench in J. Hemchand and Company’s case. A similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463.
9. Having examined the claim of the assessed in respect of each item of expenditure, details whereof have been given in the annexures to the statement of the case, in the light of the said authoritative pronouncements, we are of the opinion that the assessed is not entitled to weighted deduction in respect of any of the expenditure incurred by it.
10. In this view of the matter, the questions referred at the instance of the assessed in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the Revenue and against the assessed. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the Revenue and against the assessed. In view of our answer in respect of the assessment year 1977-78, the question referred at the instance of the assessed for the assessment year 1978-79 is also answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the Revenue and against the assessed.
11. All the three references stand disposed of with no order as to costs.