JUDGMENT :- 1. The above Tax Case Appeals relate to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The said appeals are admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest income should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the deduction u/s.80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income was not to be assessed under the head "Profits & Gains of Business and Profession"?" 2. The assessee is carrying on export business. In order to avail the credit facilities, according to the assessee, it has deposited a sum of Rs.300.0 lacs with the Bank. The interest derived from such deposit whether to be treated as "business income" or "from other sources" was a question to be decided by the Assessing Authority. Originally, the Assessing Authority has accepted the said interest as business income. However, the same has been subsequently rejected as per Section 80HHC(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which stood at that time, is as follows:- "For the purpose of sub section (1), profits derived from the export of goods or merchandise out of India shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business (as computed under the head "Profits and Gains of business profession"), the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee." 3. In order to avail the benefit of the aforesaid provision, the amount deposited and the interest received must be profits and gains of business profession. The Tribunal, by relying upon the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. A.S. NIZAR AHMED & CO. (259 (ITR) 244) and also the subsequent judgments of Kerala High Court in NANJI THOPPANBAY & CO. v. ACIT (243 (ITR) 192), CIT v. JOSE THOMAS (253 (ITR) 553) and ABAD ENTERPRISES v. CIT (253 (ITR) 319), has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) to the effect that the interest income should be computed as other sources and therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act came to be rejected. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that even in the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. A.S. NIZAR AHMED & CO. (259 (ITR) 244), it was held that since the assessee did not produce the letters from the Bank sanctioning the various credit limits and facilities, the Bench has decided in favour of the Revenue. For proper and better appreciation of the case, it is extracted here under:- "2. The assessee is a firm doing business in export of tanned and finished leather. It had obtained credit facilities from the overseas branch of the State Bank of India, Madras. The assessee had, in the same bank, made deposits to the tune of Rs.139.14 lakhs, on which it received interest at the rate of 10 per cent. The assessee's claim that the interest received by it on those deposits should be treated as part of the income from business was negatived by the AO as also by the CIT, but was upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee did not produce the letters from the bank sanctioning the various credit limits and facilities to support its claim that such facilities and credits would not have been provided if the deposits had not been made with the bank and that the making of the deposit was a precondition for the assessee enjoying those credits and other facilities from the bank. The assessee only produced a letter, dt. 2nd Nov., 1989, although those facilities and the deposits had been made several years prior to 1989. In that letter it was stated that the investment in fixed deposit was made at the instance of the bank. The CIT did not attach any value to that letter and held that on the assessee's own showing it was to the advantage of the assessee to keep money in deposit as it received interest at higher rate on the deposit, while the interest it paid to the bank on the credit facilities extended to it was less. It was also found by the CIT that when the bank later raised the interest rate on some of the facilities to 18 per cent the assessee withdrew a sum of Rs.60 lakhs from those deposits, without any detriment to the facilities that had been extended to it by the bank." 5. It was also found by the CIT that when the bank later raised the interest rate on some of the facilities to 18 per cent the assessee withdrew a sum of Rs.60 lakhs from those deposits, without any detriment to the facilities that had been extended to it by the bank." 5. Learned counsel would rely upon various judgments to substantiate his contention that in cases where deposits have been made in the Bank and interest received and such deposit is for the purpose of conducting the business, it should be treated as income under the head "business". 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would retort that there is absolutely no record to show that in respect of assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, out of compulsion, the amount has been deposited by the assessee to the Bank for the purpose of sustaining his business. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order of the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would rely upon the letter of the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch dated 19.10.1993, in which it is stated as follows:- "With respect to various credit facilities extended to the company, we draw your attention to the necessity of maintaining margin for the non-fund based limits sanctioned to your company and to cover any excess drawings in the fund-based limits. In this connection, we request you to maintain a minimum of Rs.300.00 lacs as deposit with us. Your early action in this regard will be much appreciated." 8. Learned counsel also produced another letter dated 9.10.2003, which states as follows:- "Further to the Certificate dated 19.10.1993 issued to you, we are issuing this certificate. The company had made the term deposit to the tune of Rs.300.00 lacs at our instance, since it is the precondition to provide the company with various credit facilities, for the non-fund based limits, to cover any excess drawings in the fund-based limits, to avoid any exigency arising out of debits to account on non-payment/delayed payment of export bills and to continue making available the needed level of packing credit advance. The above is based on the policy of the Bank." 9. In our view, it is the fact that Rs.300.0 lacs have been deposited in the Bank for the purpose of availing the credit facilities from the Bank. The above is based on the policy of the Bank." 9. In our view, it is the fact that Rs.300.0 lacs have been deposited in the Bank for the purpose of availing the credit facilities from the Bank. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid two letters are sufficient to show that unless the credit facilities are availed, as exporters, the assessee cannot carry on business. Therefore, according to him, the said letters stated to have been produced before the Assessing Authority have not been considered. On a reading of the said letters extracted above, we do not find even the assessment year about which we are concerned. As stated above, the deposit of Rs.300.0 lacs made by the assessee to the Bank is not in dispute and availing interest from such deposit is also not disputed. The question to be decided for the purpose of availing the said provision is as to whether the deposit is a condition precedent and it is mandatory for the purpose of running business so as to treat the said income under the head "business". 10. No useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the assessing Authority, since we are satisfied that the letters produced before us do not show that they relate to the particular assessment year and the amount was deposited out of compulsion and mandatory. In such view of the matter, the plea made by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Authority cannot be accepted. 11. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and we answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The Tax Case Appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.