SMT. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, J.

The following questions have been referred to by the Tribunal at the instance of the applicant under s. 256(1) of the IT Act,

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cash assistance received from the Government for the export of goods is not eligible for relief under s. 80HH

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid under s. 220(2) of the Act is not an allowable deduction against the profits of the applicant company "

2. The assessee is a domestic company in which the public are substantially interested. The assessee-company is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of V. belts, oil seals, O Rings rubber moulded products, etc. The assessee claimed relief under s. 80HH of the IT Act and also with regard to the interest paid under s. 220(2) of the Act. The ITO negatived the relief sought for by the assessee. The CIT had taken the view that the cash assistance received from the Government by the assessee cannot be regarded as part of the income derived from the industrial undertaking. The Tribunal had also rejected the relief sought for by the assessee, thus dismissing the appeal. Hence the reference had arisen at the instance of the assessee.

3. With regard to the reference No. 1, the assessee contends that the cash assistance received from the Government for the export of goods comes under s. 80HH of the Act as it is the profit and gain derived from industrial undertaking.

4. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the cash assistance received from the Government would not come under the purview of s. 80HH of the Act and the assessing authorities have correctly found and negatived the claim of the assessee. He further pointed out that the assistance granted by the Government relates only to the export of goods and it will not amount to profit or gain derived from industrial undertaking.

5. The counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assistance given by the Government relates to profits and gains of the business as this amount is also derived from industrial undertaking.

In the decision National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, the apex Court has held that,

"The dictionaries state that the word" derive"is usually followed by the word" from,

"and it means : get or trace from a source; arise from, originate in; show the origin or formation of. The use of the words "derived from" in item 11AA(2) suggests that the original source of the products has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language, what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language. That is the ordinary meaning of the words "derived from" and there is no reason to depart from that ordinary meaning herein".

The above decision further states that

"The dictionaries state that the word" derive"is usually followed by the word" from,

"and it means : get or trace from a source; arise from, originate in; show the origin or formation of,

The use of the words "derived from" in Item 11AA(2) suggests that the original source of the product has to be found. Thus, as a matter of plain English, when it is said that one word is derived from another, often in another language what is meant is that the source of that word is another word, often in another language".

The counsel for the assessee argued that by use of the words "derived from" the original source of the product has to be found and the original source is the production of goods and by taking into the original source, it can be concluded that the assistance given by the Government forms part of the profit derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of s. 80HH of the Act. He further pointed out that under s. 28 cl. (iii) of the Act, the assistance given by the Government also amounts to business income, and so, the cash assistance given by the Government clearly falls under s. 80HH of the Act. Sec. 28(iiib) reads

"cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India;"

As per that section, the above income is chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." Sec. 80HH of the Act reads as follows:

"Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking, or"

the business of a hotel, to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to twenty per cent thereof,

"The counsel for the assessee pointed out that the cash assistance received from the Government comes under the profits and gains of business or profession and this amount is also includible with the profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking and the cash assistance given by the Government clearly falls under s. 80HH of the Act. He further pointed out that as per the Supreme Court decision, the words "derived from" suggest that the original source of the product has to be found and so, this cash assistance or export subsidy traces to the origin of industrial undertaking and it clearly comes under s. 80HH. The decision reported in cited supra, relates to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the use of the words "derived from" related to Item 11-AA(2) under that Act and it was held that the words "derived from" suggest that the original source of the product has to be found. The wording "derived from" cannot be attributed to the original source of the product to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The decision Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. vs. CIT, distinguishes the expressions "attributable to" and "derived from". It has been held in the above decision that",

The legislature has deliberately used the expression "attributable to" having a wider import than the expression "derived from", thereby intending to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of the specified industry".

The above decision further states that,

" It cannot be disputed that the expression "attributable to" is certainly wider in import than the expression "derived from". Had the expression "derived from" been used, it could have with some force been contended that a balancing charge arising from the sale of old machinery and buildings cannot be regarded as profits and gains derived from the conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. In this connection, it may be pointed out that whenever the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning in the manner suggested by the learned Solicitor General, it has used the expression "derived from", as, for instance, in s. 80J. In our view, since the expression of wider import, namely, "attributable to", has been used, the legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity

"From this Supreme Court decision, it is well evident that the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning for s. 80HH and so, it has used the expression "derived from". So, the expression "derived from" used in s. 80HH implies that s. 80HH is confined only to profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking. So, the cash assistance received from the Government for export does not come under s. 80HH of the Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in cited supra with regard to the expression "derived from". So, the cash assistance given only for export cannot be treated as profit or gain derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of s. 80HH of the Act. It has nothing to do with the industrial undertaking. So, there is no nexus with the industrial undertaking and the cash assistance comes into picture only at the time of exporting the goods. It has nothing to do with the working capital for the processing of the goods. So, it cannot be stated that the cash assistance given by the Government amounts to profit or gain derived from industrial undertaking. Accordingly, we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal and we answer the first question of law in the affirmative and against the assessee.

6. With regard to the second question of law, in view of the decision Fenner (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, wherein it is held that-"

Where tax which is due from the assessee is based on profits and gains of business or profession any interest payable for non-payment of such tax should also be considered as levied on the basis of such profits or gains. It cannot be allowed as a deduction".

The interest paid under s. 220(2) of the Act cannot be allowed as deduction.

7. Accordingly, we answer the second question of law in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.