JUDGMENT: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. THIS is an application, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel, recall and rescind the impugned order of assessment passed by respondent No. 1 for the assessment year 1993-94 in refusing to allow the full deduction to the petitioners under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), and further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to grant approval under Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the said Act beyond six months to forbear from giving effect to the amendment in respect of Section 80HHC(2)(a) with effect from June 1, 1999, by the Finance Act, 1999, and also to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time for repatriation of balance export value beyond six months. 2. THE facts of the case briefly are as follows : Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company. Petitioner No. 1 supplied materials in terms of an order received at Rs. 40,19,677.69. THE petitioner earned an export profit of Rs. 27,08,787. Petitioner No. 1 claimed deduction of the said amount under Section 80HHC of the said Act. Petitioner No. 1 filed a return for the said assessment year and a "nil" return was filed under Section 139(1) of the said Act. Petitioner No. 1 also filed an audited account, tax audit and prescribed certificate for claim of deduction under Section 80HHC of the said Act. THE said return was originally accepted under Section 143(1)(a) of the said Act and the notice of hearing was issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act. The petitioner in the course of hearing filed its details of realisation of sale proceeds which were effected within six months. According to the petitioner, petitioner No. 1 realised a sum of Rs. 25,71,655 out of total sale proceeds of Rs. 40,19,677.69 leaving a balance sum of Rs. 14,48,022.80. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was able to realise Rs. 36,13,808 out of the said total sale proceeds. 3. THE Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") refused to grant any deduction to the petitioner in respect of the amount which could not be realised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction under Section 80HHC(2)(a). 36,13,808 out of the said total sale proceeds. 3. THE Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") refused to grant any deduction to the petitioner in respect of the amount which could not be realised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction under Section 80HHC(2)(a). THE claim of the said deduction under Section 80HHC is applicable in respect of the export proceeds. According to the petitioner, the Assessing Officer was obliged to refer the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT"), for his approval or disapproval, since the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter to decide the same. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said Assessing Officer passed such order without any jurisdiction. 4. IT is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied before the Commissioner of Income-tax for extension of time for bringing the balance export proceeds beyond the period of six months on February 16, 2001, March 5, 2001 and March 16, 2001, by their letters. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, returned the petitioners' application for extension of time for repatriation of sale proceeds by a letter dated March 22/23, 2001. According to the petitioner, the change brought in by the Finance Act, 1999, was with effect from June 1, 1999, and such changes cannot affect the petitioners' application. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, refused to do so in view of the fact that the law has been amended and such power only can be exercised by the Reserve Bank of India or such other authority specifically vested with the said power. According to petitioner No. 1, the said Commissioner has also failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him for the order. According to them, the order passed by the said Commissioner is also bad in law. 5. HENCE, this writ application has been filed praying for the aforesaid relief in the writ petition. 6. MR. Hirak Mitra, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the Assessing Officer had no authority or any jurisdiction to decide the matter in view of the fact that only the Commissioner has power either to grant extension or to refuse the same. Therefore, the order of refusal passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 80HHC of the said Act is totally without jurisdiction for the said assessment year. Therefore, the order of refusal passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 80HHC of the said Act is totally without jurisdiction for the said assessment year. He further contended that the amendment which has taken place after the transaction took place. Therefore, according to him, the changes in the Finance Act will not allow the Commissioner to refuse or to return the said application filed by the petitioners for extension. He further contended that the changes are to be given effect to prospectively and not retrospectively. He also relied upon a judgment reported in Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. v. CIT and contended that the court was pleased to direct the Commissioner to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on the merits. Mr. Som, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this court. He also submitted that on December 6, 1993, the petitioner filed a return of income. On September 8, 1994, notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act was issued, processing under Section 143(1)(a) was made on November 23, 1994, and then on October 18, 1995, notice under Section 143(2) was issued to petitioner No. 1. Further on December 5, 1995, notice under Section 143(2) was again issued and thereafter, on March 21, 1996, the Assessing Officer passed the order under Section 143(2) which was issued. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner. On December 18, 1996, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed in order confirming the said issue. On February 18, 1997, the petitioner further filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On February 14, 2001, a stay petition was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Kolkata. On February 20, 2001, the assessee filed a stay petition before the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-12, Kolkata. On February 22, 2001, the report of the Assessing Officer was sent to the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Kolkata, on the stay petition. On February 27, 2001, an application was filed under Section 155(13) read with Section 154. On February 28, 2001, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV's order was issued on the stay petition and thereafter, on February 28, 2001, recovery of demand was made by the Assessing Officer from the HDFC Bank. On February 27, 2001, an application was filed under Section 155(13) read with Section 154. On February 28, 2001, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV's order was issued on the stay petition and thereafter, on February 28, 2001, recovery of demand was made by the Assessing Officer from the HDFC Bank. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed an application on March 5, 2001, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Kolkata, for extension of time under Section 80HHC(2)(a). On March 7, 2001, application was filed before the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the attachment of bank accounts. Then on May 9, 2001, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 155(13) read with Section 154 was rejected by the respondent authorities. The respondent authority received a writ petition filed by the petitioner on May 18, 2001. 7. MR. Som submitted that all these facts were suppressed from this court. He further contended that the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the writ petition filed a supplementary affidavit affirmed on June 25, 2001, when for the first time the matter came up before this court and such point of suppression was taken by the respondent authorities. He further drew my attention to the said affidavit and contended that the petitioner has only filed the said document by way of the said supplementary affidavit after filing the petition in this court. He further contended that an application under Section 155(13) of the said Act was also filed by the petitioner. 8. IT has been specifically informed to the petitioner by a letter dated May 18, 2001, that the Reserve Bank of India or such other authority has been authorised under the law to take the steps in the matter and the Commissioner of Income-tax had no authority to deal with the matter any further in view of the fact that the amendment took place in the year 1999, and further he contended that after June 1, 1999, the extension is clear that the Commissioner has no authority to deal with the matter. He further contended that since the matter is pending before the Appellate Tribunal which has been suppressed in this proceeding, parallel proceedings are not permissible under the law. He further contended that since the matter is pending before the Appellate Tribunal which has been suppressed in this proceeding, parallel proceedings are not permissible under the law. In support of such contention, he relied upon the judgments reported in Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. S. C. Tewari, ITO ; Purshottam Thackersey v. K.N. Anantarama Ayyar, CWT [1985] 154 ITR 395 (Bom) and Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC . 9. MR. Som further contended that the said judgment in Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. v. CIT, has no application in this case and he further drew my attention to the Explanation to Section 80HHC(2) where it has been specifically stated that the Commissioner has no power because he is not dealing in the foreign exchange. 10. AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the parties I do not have any hesitation to accept the contention of Mr. Som and I hold that the petitioner knowing fully well that the matter is pending before the Appellate Tribunal should not have filed this application before this court. In my opinion, there is a material suppression of facts from this court by not stating the said fact in the writ application. In my opinion the subsequent filing of the supplementary affidavit and furthermore without affirming the said fact positively cannot give right to the petitioner to get any relief from this court. I further do not have any hesitation to hold that the point urged before me that the Commissioner has no authority to deal with the matter since the petitioner did apply for such extension after amending took effect in the year 1999. It would also evident from the letters that the application was forwarded by the petitioner only in the year 2001 and much after the amendment came into effect. I further do not have any hesitation to accept the contention of Mr. Som that the Commissioner had no power to decide the matter after the amendment of Section 80HHC. Accordingly, in my opinion, it would not be proper for me to pass any order on this application and on these facts this application must fail and is hereby dismissed.