IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. No. 300 of 1995 Date of decision: 5.10.2009. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala. ......Applicant. Vs. M/s Rai Bahadur Knitting Works, Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Rajesh Sethi, Standing Counsel for revenue. None for the assessee. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 27.5.1993 in I.T.A. No.409/Chandi/1989 relating to assessment year 1985-86: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction under Section 80HHC(1)(b)?” 2. One of the partners of the assessee died on 15.3.1984 and in his place his widow was taken as a partner during the period from 16.3.1984 to 31.3.1984. The Assessing Officer made separate assessment for the Assessment Year 1984-85 in respect of period up to 15.3.1984 and period from 16.3.1984 to 31.3.1984. This was done in view of provisions of I.T.R. No. 300 of 1995 [2] Section 188 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short,”the Act”). 3. For the next assessment year i.e. 1985-86, the assessee sought benefit under Section 80HHC of the Act by comparing its export turn over with previous year comprising of 15 days from 16.3.1984 to 31.3.1984. The said benefit was sought by moving application under Section 154 of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that even though, technically, two separate assessments were made, export turnover of the previous year, to be taken into account for comparison, has to be for the whole year. The CIT(A), however, held that since there was separate assessment for the period from 16.3.1984 to 31.3.1984, this period could be treated as previous year. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that for purposes of Section 80 HHC, the words 'previous year' should refer to whole of the previous year even if separate assessments were made for the period prior to death of a partner and period subsequent thereto. Even though this submission merits consideration, having regard to the fact that scheme of the provision has itself undergone substantial change and this question may not frequently arise, we leave the question open. 6. The reference is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) October 5, 2009 JUDGE raghav