JUDGMENT : J.N. Bhatt, J. The judgment of the court was delivered by J.N. BHATT J. By this reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) has referred to us, for our opinion, the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35B on Rs. 45,70,837 (export inspection fees paid in India Rs. 31,520, export freight paid in India Rs. 44,77,604 and foreign travelling expenses Rs. 61,713)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not admitting the additional ground claiming deduction of Rs. 1,88,743 being customs duty payable by the assessee?" 2. The assessee-company carries on the business of manufacturing textiles, steel tubes, machineries, cylinders and chemicals. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee had made, inter alia, claims for weighted deduction under the provisions of section 35B of the Act. The assessee claimed weighted deduction on export commission, foreign travelling expenses, export inspection fees and export freight paid in India. 3. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction in respect of foreign travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 61,713. According to the Income-tax Officer, the expenditure was not incurred for the purpose of export but it was incurred for the purpose of starting a new project. He had also rejected the claim for weighted deduction on export inspection fees, in India, of Rs. 31,520 and export freight paid, in India, of Rs. 44,77,604 on the ground that they were not falling in any of the sub-clauses of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, the claims for weighted deduction in respect of the aforesaid three items of expenditure came to be rejected by him. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the Commissioner" for short). However, the Commissioner confirmed the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35B of the Act by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Commissioner, the assessee challenged its legality and validity before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the Commissioner" for short). However, the Commissioner confirmed the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35B of the Act by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Commissioner, the assessee challenged its legality and validity before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also confirmed the decision of the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner, following the decision of a Special Bench of the Tribunal in J. Hemchand and Company (ITA No. 3255 & 3330/Bom/76-77, dated June 17, 1978). In short, the assessee failed in the proceedings before the Department and also before the Tribunal. 5. In so far as the second question is concerned, it may be stated that it was raised for the first time on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal. During the course of the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee had advanced it as an additional ground where-under the assessee claimed weighted deduction on customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,88,743. As such a claim was not made either before the Income-tax Officer or before the Commissioner, the additional ground raised on behalf of the assessee claiming weighted deduction of customs duty was not accepted by the Tribunal. 5. In the aforesaid facts, at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred to us, for our opinion, the aforesaid two questions. 6. In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, the assessee had claimed weighed deduction under section 35B on the following items: Sl. No. Items of expenditure Amount Claimed Rs. 1. Export inspection fees paid in India 31,520 2. Export freight paid in India 44,77,604 3. Foreign travelling expenses 61,713 7. In all, the assessee claimed Rs. 45,70,837 by way of weighted deduction. 8. As regards export inspection fees, it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the authorities below have committed a serious error in disallowing the said amount by way of weighted deduction. In that, it is further contended that this amount could-have been allowed under section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 558. In that, it is further contended that this amount could-have been allowed under section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 558. Relying on the said decision, it is contended that the assessee would be entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act. Prima facie, this contention may appear to be subtle and captivating, but it is not acceptable in view of the fact that, in the present case, sufficient materials are absent. 9. In other words, the nature of expenditure incurred, the purpose of the expenditure and other material facts which led to the incurring of the expenditure of Rs. 31,520 by way of export inspection fees are absent. 10. In the case relied on by learned counsel for the assessee, there were sufficient facts to hold that the claim of the assessee in that case fell under section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act. The amount claimed by the assessee in that case was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner and the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction. On a reference, the Revenue contended that, for claiming weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act, the assessee had to establish that the expenses had been incurred outside India and since the inspection agency fees had been paid in India, the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction on the expenditure. It was held in the facts of that case that the export agency inspection fees paid by the assessee for the purpose of obtaining the certificate, which was a necessary requirement for the export of goods, amounted to expenditure incurred for furnishing to a person outside India technical information for the promotion of sales of such goods within the meaning of section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act and that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction on such expenditure. In these circumstances, in the light of the facts available on record in that case, the assessee was found entitled to weighted deduction on such expenditure under section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act. So is not the factual situation in the present reference. Unfortunately, as observed hereinbefore, no particulars are furnished. The purpose, requirement, nature, etc., relating to the expenditure of Rs. So is not the factual situation in the present reference. Unfortunately, as observed hereinbefore, no particulars are furnished. The purpose, requirement, nature, etc., relating to the expenditure of Rs. 31,520 are not borne out from the record. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the assessee. In the absence of material particulars of the expenditure incurred on this item, i.e., export inspection fees, we are unable to agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the assessee. In the result, in the absence of such material particulars and break-up of the purpose, nature, etc., of the said expenditure, the assessee would not be entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(vi) of the Act. 11. This leads to the alternative submission made by learned counsel for the assessee. He has alternatively submitted that, in the absence of necessary information and particulars, the Tribunal may be directed to take appropriate steps to adjust its decision in that case in the light of the answer of this court. This submission would have had greater force and we would have gone deeper into the matter had the amount been substantial and significant. Since the amount involved is very small, we do not think it necessary to accept the alternative submission also. Hence, this submission is also rejected. 12. In so far as export freight paid in India of Rs. 44,77,604 is concerned, the Income-tax Officer had held that the expenditure claimed by the assessee towards export freight would fall within sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B of the Act. Therefore, this claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The view of the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. In our opinion, the view of the Tribunal is quite correct in view of the clear provision in section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. The amount of Rs. 44,77,604 was paid for export freight in India. Sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B of the Act reads as under : "35B. (1) (b) The expenditure referred to in clause (a) is that incurred wholly and exclusively on-.. The amount of Rs. 44,77,604 was paid for export freight in India. Sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B of the Act reads as under : "35B. (1) (b) The expenditure referred to in clause (a) is that incurred wholly and exclusively on-.. (iii) distribution, supply or provision outside India of such goods, services or facilities, not being expenditure incurred in India in connection therewith or expenditure (wherever incurred) on the carriage of such goods to their destination outside India or on the insurance of such goods while in transit;" 13. In view of the aforesaid clear provision, the said expenditure cannot be allowed by way of weighted deduction. We, therefore, confirm the view taken by the Tribunal. 14. As regards foreign travelling expenses, the assessee had claimed Rs. 61,713. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction as the expenses were referable and related to starting a new project and not connected with the present business of the assessee. The decision of the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. We find no material to interfere with the decision taken by the Tribunal. The assessee has not been able to show any material on record which would warrant interference of this court as far as this item of expenditure is concerned. Therefore, we confirm the view taken by the taxing authorities. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we decide question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the assessee. 16. In so far as the second question is concerned, it will not detain us any longer as it is directly covered by the Full Bench decision of this court in the case, of CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499. The view taken by the Tribunal is fully justified and as it is in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of this court, it is not necessary to enter into the factual aspects in greater detail. 17. In the result, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. 18. Reference answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.