Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions of law for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our consideration For the assessment year 1970-71 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of (i) allocation fees paid to ICMF, Bombay, (ii) inspection fees paid to Textile Committee, (iii) council charges paid to Texprocil, Bombay, and (iv) fees paid to Texprocil, Bombay ?" For the assessment year 1971-72 " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of (i) inspection fee paid to Indian Cotton Mills Federation, Bombay, (ii) allocation fees paid to Indian Cotton Mills Ltd., and (iii) council charges, etc. ?" For the assessment year 1972-73 " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of inspection fees paid to Textile Committee ?" Though in the statement of the case there is an omission with reference to the question of law arising out of the order for the assessment year 1974-75 it is seen that the Tribunal has made a reference for the assessment year 1974-75 in R. A. No. 668/Mds of 1984, and the order of the Tribunal also shows that it has made reference for the said assessment year 1974-75 though the following question was omitted to be noticed in the order referring the case to this court "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of the Indian Cotton Mills Federation ?" We are of the opinion that the above question of law has been referred as the omission was merely a mistake and we proceed to deal with the case also for the assessment year 1974-75 The assessee is a public limited company and it claimed weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of the following items of expenditure 1970-71: Rs (i) Allocation fees paid to ICMF, Bombay 4, 13, 795 (ii) Inspection fees paid to Textile Committee 1, 28, 131 (iii) Council charges paid to Texprocil, Bombay 3, 881 (iv) Cess paid to Texprocil, Bombay 27, 576 1971-72 in respect of following items (i) Inspection fee paid to Indian Cotton Mills Federa- 1, 61, 223 tion, Bombay (ii) Allocation fees paid to Indian Cotton Mills Federa- tion (iii) Council charges, etc 1972-73 Inspection fees paid to textile Committee 1, 11, 509 1974-75 In respect of export promotion fee paid to I.C.M.F. 3, 60, 016 We are not concerned with 1975-76 The case of the assessee in the assessment proceedings for the four assessment years was that the payments were monetary in character and were made for the export of textile goods from India. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act on the ground that the expenditure claimed would not fall under any one of the sub-clauses of clause (b) of section 35B(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on appeal preferred by the assessee, held that the Textile Export Promotion Council was an agent controlling and regulating exports of textile goods from India as it allowed the quotas and inspected whether the quality of the goods exported conformed to the standards prescribed by the importing countries. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction as the expenditures were incurred in connection with and incidental to the execution of the contract for supply of goods outside India. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the question with reference to payment to the Textile Export Promotion Council and they considered the activities of the Textile Export Promotion Committee. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Export Promotion Council is an authority empowered by the Government of India to control and regulate the export of the goods and the payment made to the Export Promotion Council would partake of the character of statutory levy on export. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the payments made to the Textile Export Promotion Council would qualify for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act. On an application filed by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the questions of law set out supra. We have carefully considered the arguments of Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, and we are of the view that it is not necessary to set out the arguments of learned counsel in detailThe question that arose before the Tribunal was, whether the payment made to Indian Cotton Mills Federation, Bombay, and the payments made by way of council charges to Texprocils and the cess paid for the said assessment years would qualify for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal considered the question with reference to payments made to Textile Export Promotion Council, but has not considered the question with reference to the nature of the duties and the activities performed by the Indian Cotton Mills Federation and it has also not recorded any finding as to the nature of the activities performed by Texprocils, Bombay. It is also not clear why the inspection fees were paid to the Indian Cotton Mills Federation and why the assessee was required to pay council charges or other expenditure which are the subject-matter of claim preferred by the assessee for weighted deduction. The Tribunal has considered the role played by the Textile Export Promotion Council and it is not clear how the role played by the Textile Promotion Council is relevant to determine the question whether the payment to Indian Cotton Mills Federation or to the Texprocils, Bombay, is eligible for weighted deduction. The Tribunal has not even indicated that both the authorities are one and the same. It is needless to state that where the assessee is claiming weighted deduction and it is for the assessee to establish that the expenses incurred by the assessee fall within the purview of any one of sub-clauses mentioned in section 35B(1)(b) of the Act, and unless the assessee establishes the link between the expenditure and the allowability of the claim with reference to several sub-clauses of section 35B of the Act the assessee is not entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. and CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd., had categorically laid down the statement of the law that the Tribunal cannot allow weighted deduction without any specific finding that the expenditure would fall under one or more than the sub-clauses referred to section 35B of the Act. Since the Tribunal has not decided the relevant question necessary for allowing the assessee's claim for weighted deduction, we are not providing answers to the various questions of law referred for various assessment years since the Tribunal has not decided the necessary and factual basis and decide the issues arising out of the question referred to us. Since the Tribunal has not decided the relevant question necessary for allowing the assessee's claim for weighted deduction, we are not providing answers to the various questions of law referred for various assessment years since the Tribunal has not decided the necessary and factual basis and decide the issues arising out of the question referred to us. But, the Tribunal, as stated earlier, is directed to consider the questions afresh in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, and examine the nature of the expenditure and the purposes for which the amounts were spent having regard to the various sub-clauses in section 35B of the Act. Though, we are not answering the questions of law for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75, the Tribunal is directed to reconsider the entire matter afresh in light of observation made by us above.