AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1984-85 :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 25,000 out of the sum spent on foreign tour of Mrs. M. H. Shah. " ( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in observing that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 35b of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on Rs. 25,000 being the sum spent on the foreign tour of Mrs. M. H. Shah. ( 3 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 80hhc (1) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in considering the item of export of goods or merchandise, viz. , coffee export, which was not exported by the assessee in the preceding accounting year, for the purpose of eligibility of relief under Section 80hhc (1) (b) of the Act. ( 4 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80hhc (1) (b) of the Act on the 'export of coffee'. "2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of dealing in jute goods, coffee, tea, etc. This reference relates to the financial year ending March 31, 1985, corresponding to the assessment year 1984-85. During the relevant previous year, Mr. R. J. Shah and his wife, Mrs. M. M. Shah, both directors of the assessee-company went abroad on a tour and an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,31,462 was spent by way of foreign travelling expenses. The Income-tax Officer found that although Mrs. Shah was one of the directors of the company, she was not being paid any remuneration. The Income-tax Officer was, therefore, of the view that Mrs. Shah did not take much active part in the affairs of the company. He alleged that the expenditure incurred for the continental tour by Mrs. The Income-tax Officer found that although Mrs. Shah was one of the directors of the company, she was not being paid any remuneration. The Income-tax Officer was, therefore, of the view that Mrs. Shah did not take much active part in the affairs of the company. He alleged that the expenditure incurred for the continental tour by Mrs. Shah did not exclusively relate to the business needs of the company and some element of personal expenditure was involved in this case. He estimated 50 per cent. of the aggregate expenditure of Rs. 1,31,468 as having been incurred for the tour of Mrs. Shah and sought to disallow on estimate a sum of Rs. 25,000 considering it to be attributable towards personal expenses of Mrs. Shah. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was, inter alia, contended on behalf of the assessee-company that the Income-tax Officer has himself allowed a part of the expenses attributable to Mrs. Shah and there was no material before the Income-tax Officer to hold that any portion of the expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of Mrs. Shah was excessive and unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the company and the benefits derived therefrom within the meaning of Section 40a (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was also contended that no disallowance could be made in this case even under Section 40 (c) of the said Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, upheld the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer. On second appeal before the Tribunal, it was again contended on behalf of the assessee-company that the Income-tax Officer did not dispute the fact that the foreign tour of Mr. and Mrs. Shah was a business tour. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed only a portion of the expenses incurred on Mrs. Shah on estimate basis only because Mrs. Shah was not paid any remuneration and according to the Income-tax Officer the total expenses on the foreign tour had some personal element involved. It was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee-company that a portion of the foreign travelling expenses of Mrs. Shah could not be disallowed only because she was not paid any remuneration. Shah was not paid any remuneration and according to the Income-tax Officer the total expenses on the foreign tour had some personal element involved. It was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee-company that a portion of the foreign travelling expenses of Mrs. Shah could not be disallowed only because she was not paid any remuneration. It was also contended that the Income-tax Officer did not make any analysis of the expenses incurred on the foreign tour and that he did not bring on record any material to prove that foreign travelling expenses so incurred had any personal element involved. The Tribunal agreeing with the contentions of the assessee-company deleted the disallowance of Rs. 25,000 made by the Income-tax Officer out of the foreign tour expenses. The Tribunal also directed the Income-tax Officer to allow relief under Section 35b of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the said sum of Rs. 25,000 representing foreign travelling expenses which was originally disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The first two questions raised in this reference arise out of the aforesaid facts. 3. It appears that the Income-tax Officer has nowhere held that the foreign tour of Mr. and Mrs. Shah was not a business tour. Out of the total foreign travelling expenses of Rs. 1,31,468, the Income-tax Officer had himself estimated Rs. 65,734, being 50 per cent. of Rs. 1,31,468 as the expenditure pertaining to the foreign travel of Mrs. Shah. Out of the said sum of Rs. 65,734, the Income-tax Officer has himself allowed Rs. 40,734 as business expenditure and disallowed only Rs. 25,000 on estimate alleging it to be attributable towards the personal expenses of Mrs. Shah. In other words, Rs. 40,734 being a portion of the foreign travelling expenses of Mrs. Shah was allowed as business expenditure even by the Income-tax Officer. This only goes to show that the foreign travel of Mrs. Shah was also a business tour, otherwise no portion of Rs. 65,734 being the foreign travel expenses attributable to Mrs. Shah could have been allowed by the Income-tax Officer as a business expenditure. The Tribunal in this case has found that the Income-tax Officer did not scrutinise the foreign travel expenses of Mrs. Shah and he did not bring on record any material to show that any personal element had been involved in the foreign tour expenses of Mrs. Shah. Shah could have been allowed by the Income-tax Officer as a business expenditure. The Tribunal in this case has found that the Income-tax Officer did not scrutinise the foreign travel expenses of Mrs. Shah and he did not bring on record any material to show that any personal element had been involved in the foreign tour expenses of Mrs. Shah. This finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the Revenue in this reference. In the absence of any challenge to such finding of the Tribunal on grounds of perversity, we have no hesitation in answering the first question involved in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 4. The second question is consequential. The deduction under Section 35b in respect of the said sum of Rs. 25,000 was refused to the assessee-company only on the ground that the same was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer as non-business expenditure. Once the entire foreign travelling expenses are allowed as business expenditure, deduction under Section 35b is admissible to the assessee on the entire foreign travelling expenses of Rs. 1,31,468 including the said sum of Rs. 25,000 on which such deduction under Section 35b was earlier refused by the Income-tax Officer. The second question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 5 ) THE third and fourth questions relate to the interpretation of Section 80hhc (1) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The relevant facts are as under: during the relevant previous year, the assessee-company exported tea, jute and coffee. The total export value of all these goods in the relevant previous year was Rs. 1,89,40,529. The assessee-company claimed relief under both the Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc of the said Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, was of the view that since no coffee was exported by the assessee-company in the immediately preceding previous year, the assessee-company was not entitled to any relief under Section 80hhc (1) (b) on the export of coffee during the relevant previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1984-85. The export turnover of coffee during the relevant year was Rs. 36,28,960. The export turnover of coffee during the relevant year was Rs. 36,28,960. The Income-tax Officer, however, allowed relief under Section 80hhc (1) (b) in respect of export of both tea and jute since both these items had also been exported by the assessee-company even in the immediately preceding financial year corresponding to the assessment year 1983-84. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the aforesaid action of the Income-tax Officer. On second appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee, it was, inter alia, contended that both the Income-tax Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law in denying the benefit of deduction under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc in respect of export of coffee made by the assessee-company during the relevant previous year. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc did not require the various articles exported by any assessee during the relevant previous year to be classified separately. All that was required was to find out whether the export turnover, during the particular previous year, of eligible goods exceeded the aggregate export turnover of the immediately preceding year and if it was so, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction equal to 5 per cent. of the amount by which the export turnover of eligible goods or merchandise during the relevant previous year exceeded the export turnover of the assessee for the immediately preceding previous year. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee-company and directed the Income-tax Officer to allow full deduction under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc even in respect of export of coffee. ( 6 ) AT the outset it would be convenient to set out the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc as it stood at the relevant time. "80hhc. Deduction in respect of export turnover.- (1) Where the assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company), who is resident in India, exports out of India during the previous year relevant to an assessment year any goods or merchandise 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, the following deductions, namely : -- (a) a deduction of an amount equal to one per cent. of the export turnover of such goods or merchandise during the previous year ; and (b) a deduction of an amount equal to five per cent. of the amount by which the export turnover of such goods or merchandise during the previous year exceeds the export turnover of such goods or merchandise during the immediately preceding previous year. " ( 7 ) SECTION 80hhc was inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1983. This section was inserted with a view to encouraging larger exports of certain goods by providing tax relief to Indian companies and non-corporate taxpayers resident in India. The tax concession under this section consists of deduction in the computation of taxable profits calculated as under : (a) a deduction of an amount equal to one per cent. of the export turnover of the qualifying goods or merchandise during the relevant previous year ; plus (b) a deduction of an amount equal to five per cent. of the amount by which the export turnover during the relevant previous year exceeds the export turnover of the goods or merchandise during the immediately preceding previous year. ( 8 ) THE controversy in this case centres round the interpretation of the expression "such goods or merchandise" appearing in both Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc. Both the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were of the view that the expression "such goods or merchandise" as appearing in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc referred to the goods or merchandise exported by the assessee in the immediately preceding previous year. Since the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee-company admittedly did not export any coffee in the immediately preceding previous year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84, it was not entitled to any deduction under Clause (b) in respect of export of coffee effected only during the previous year relevant to the year under reference. ( 9 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 80hhc grants relief in respect of export of "any goods or merchandise to which this section applies". ( 9 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 80hhc grants relief in respect of export of "any goods or merchandise to which this section applies". Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 80hhc makes it quite clear that this section applies to all goods or merchandise other than those specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2), if the sale proceeds of such goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange. In other words Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc grants deduction on export of all goods or merchandise other than those specifically excluded by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) thereof. The expression "such goods or merchandise" appearing in both Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc, in our view, referred to the expression "any goods or merchandise to which this section applies" as appearing in Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc. It may also be noted that the expression "such goods or merchandise" appears in both Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc and the said expression must receive the same construction in both the clauses. If the contention of the Revenue that the assessee is not entitled to any benefit in respect of export of coffee under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) is accepted on the ground that the assessee did not export any coffee in the immediately previous year, the assessee would not be entitled to any benefit in respect of export of coffee even under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1 ). This is neither the contention of the Revenue nor is it a possible construction of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc. ( 10 ) FOR ascertaining the legislative intent of any provision of law, regard may be had to the heading of the section as well as the spirit conveyed by the provisions of the entire section of the legislation. At the relevant time Section 80hhc has the heading "deduction in respect of export turnover". The expression "export turnover" appears in Sub-section (1) (a) and (1) (b) and the "export turnover" cannot be interpreted as having different meanings for different sub-sections. Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 80hhc declares that the deduction is available to all goods or merchandise other than excepted goods or merchandise as provided in the said sub-section. The expression "export turnover" appears in Sub-section (1) (a) and (1) (b) and the "export turnover" cannot be interpreted as having different meanings for different sub-sections. Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 80hhc declares that the deduction is available to all goods or merchandise other than excepted goods or merchandise as provided in the said sub-section. The object is to give an incentive to boost foreign exchange earnings. The purpose of Sub-section (1) (b) is to make any improvement upon past year's performance specially rewarding to maintain the exporting assessees on a relentless and constant drive to push exports upwards. Sub-section (1) (b) has nothing to do with what commodity is exported so long as the merchandise is not within the excluded items. ( 11 ) IF the interpretation of the Revenue is accepted that the deduction is not available under Section 80hhc (1) (b) in respect of the increase over the past year's export turnover only because the increase is due to addition of a new export item, the legislative intent will get frustrated. It is not and cannot be the contention of the Revenue that coffee is not an item to which this section does not apply. The only point raised is that for a deduction under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the identical goods or merchandise must have an export in the preceding year as well. This approach is not logical. On a plain reading of the provisions, for Sub-section (1) (b) the first requisite is that there must be export turnover in past year, second, the instant year's export turnover must be in excess of export turnover of last year and the merchandise exported should not be any item excluded by Sub-section (2 ). ( 12 ) WE hold that the export turnover referred to in the different clauses of the section cannot but be computed as a single overall quantum and not as itemised separate quanta. ( 13 ) IN our view, a deduction under both Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) is permissible in respect of the export turnover of the qualifying goods or merchandise other than those specifically excluded by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2 ). Under Clause (a), the deduction shall be equal to one per cent. ( 13 ) IN our view, a deduction under both Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) is permissible in respect of the export turnover of the qualifying goods or merchandise other than those specifically excluded by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2 ). Under Clause (a), the deduction shall be equal to one per cent. of the export turnover of the qualifying goods or merchandise during the relevant previous year and under Clause (b) a deduction of an amount equal to five per cent. of the amount by which the export turnover of the qualifying goods or merchandise during the previous year exceeds the export turnover of such qualifying goods or merchandise during the immediately preceding previous year. In other words for the purposes of Clause (b) one has to compare the aggregate export turnover of all qualifying goods or merchandise during the relevant previous year with the aggregate export turnover of all qualifying goods or merchandise during the immediately preceding previous year. No individual classification of the qualifying goods or merchandise is contemplated either in Clause (a) or Clause (b ). The interpretation that we are taking as aforesaid is incidentally the same as was taken by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the explanatory notes forming part of Circular No. 372 (See [1984] 146 ITR (St.) 9), dated December 8, 1983, issued in explaining the different provisions of the Finance Act, 1983. Paragraph 42. 2 of the said circular explains the expression "such goods or merchandise" to mean qualifying goods or merchandise. ( 14 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow full deduction under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc with reference to the entire export turnover of all qualifying goods or merchandise which in this case consisted of lea, coffee and jute. On the export turnover of coffee, the Income-tax Officer has already allowed deduction under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc. In our view, the assessee-company is also entitled to deduction under Clause (b) in respect of its aggregate export turnover which includes, inter alia, the export turnover in respect of coffee. On the export turnover of coffee, the Income-tax Officer has already allowed deduction under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc. In our view, the assessee-company is also entitled to deduction under Clause (b) in respect of its aggregate export turnover which includes, inter alia, the export turnover in respect of coffee. The export turnover of coffee cannot be excluded for the purposes of calculating deduction under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80hhc only on the ground that in the immediately preceding year the assessee-company did not export coffee. In this view of the matter, we answer the third and fourth questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.