Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the old question, viz., what is information, is presented for our consideration in the light of the facts of this case. We were tempted to embark upon the controversy whether the decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution even though the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, composed of judges of a lesser number, has expressly, after consideration, doubted the view of the larger Bench. In order to appreciate the questions we may, however, refer to certain facts.
(2.) It appears that Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961, was amended by Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1970, which received the assent of the President of India on the 14th of May, 1970 (incidentally there is a mistake of date in the order of the Tribunal where it is stated that the said Act received the assent of the President on the 4th of May, 1970 ; that mistake, however, does not affect the position). The original assessment in this case was made on the 12th of June, 1970, that is to say, subsequent to the above amendment. The assessee had made a claim originally in its return under Section 35B for a higher figure of deduction but by a letter dated May 30, 1970, the assessee had restricted such claim to Rs. 52,498.
(3.) Section 35B deals with export markets development allowance, and Sub-section (1) of the section deals with the case where the assessee, being a domestic company or a person other than the company, who is a resident in India, has incurred, after a particular date, whether directly or in association with any other person, any expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, referred to in Clause (b) of the said section, shall, subject to the provisions of the said section, be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-third times the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year.;