S. RAJARATNAM, A.M. ORDER This is appeal filed by Shri Anumula Venkateswarlu of Kurnool against order of AAC for asst. yr. 1 9 7 9 -80. 2 . assessee is HUF having income from property, business and share income from partnership firm. He paid life insurance premia to extent of Rs. 32,56 9 on which relief under s. 80C of IT Act, 1 9 61 ("the Act") was claimed. assessee's total income was computed at Rs. 42,116. Since there is ceiling of 30 per cent of gross total income for allowance of relief under s. 80C, sub-s. (4) thereto, ITO restricted relief to Rs. 8,553 which is eligible amount at 100 per cent for first Rs. 5,000, 50 per cent for next Rs. 5,000 and 40 per cent of balance out of qualifying amount Rs. 12,635 forming 30 per cent of income determined at Rs. 42,116. assessee in first appeal contended that Rs. 12,635 claimed at Rs. 12,564 at 30 per cent of returned figure was to be reckoned as ceiling on final eligible amount and not on qualifying amount under s. 80C(1) itself. assessee argued that its interpretation is justified by decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court interest he case of Hyderabad Race Club vs. Addl. CIT (1 9 7 9 ) 8 CTR (AP) 280 : (1 9 7 9 ) 120 ITR 185 (AP) as analogous relief under s. 80G of Act. Since its arguments did not find acceptance before first appellate authority, assessee is in second appeal. 3 . ld. counsel for assessee repeated his arguments before authorities below while ld. departmental representative relied upon orders of authorities below and claimed that plain language of statute justified departmental interpretation. 4. We have carefully considered records as well as arguments. assessee has paid life insurance premia to extent of Rs. 32,56 9 and claimed relief under s. 80C in respect of same. Its total income before such relief is Rs. 42,116.30 per cent thereof is Rs. 12,635. There is no dispute that ceiling should be Rs. 12,635. dispute is regarding amount on which ceiling should apply. respective workings of assessee and ITO on basis of premia paid Rs. 32,56 9 and total income at Rs. 42,116 are juxtaposed as below : Assessee's . ITO's working . working . Rs. .. Rs. First Rs. 5,000 Ceiling amount 12,635 5,000 100 per cent (Being 30 per Next Rs. 2,500 cent of total income of . 5,000 50 per cent Rs. 42,116) Balance 22,56 9 (i.e., Rs. 32,56 9 First Rs. 9 ,024 5,000 less Rs. 10,000) 40 5,000 100 per cent per cent Eligible Next Rs. 16,524 2,500 amount 5,000 50 per cent Balance 2,635 40 Relief to be per cent (i.e., Rs. 12,635 1,054 limited to 12,635 less (Rs. 10,000) (Being 30 per Relief to be . 8,554 cent of 42,116) limited to That is how assessee would claim relief of Rs. 12,635 while ITO would allow only Rs. 8,554. 5. Relevant portions of s. 80c for our purposes read as under : "80C. (1) In computing total income (a) where such aggregate does not exceed Rs. 5,000 (b) where such aggregate exceeds Rs. 5,000 but does not exceed Rs. 10,000 (c) where such aggregate exceeds Rs. 10,000 of assessee, there shall be deduction, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section amount calculated, with reference to aggregate of sums specified in sub-s. (2), at following rates, namely : whole of such aggregate ; Rs. 5,000 plus 50 per cent of amount by which such aggregate exceeds Rs.5,000. Rs. 7,500 plus 40 per cent of amount by which such aggregate exceeds Rs. 10,000. (2) sums referred to in sub-s. (1) shall be following, namely : xx xx xx xx (b) where assess is Hindu undivided family, any sums paid in previous year by assessee out of its income chargeable to tax, to effect or to keep in force insurance on life of any member of family. xx xx xx xx (4) aggregate of sums referred to in sub-s. (2), which qualifies for purposes of computing deduction under sub-s. (1), shall not exceed xx xx xx xx (iii) in case of Hindu undivided family, thirty per cent of its gross total income, or forty thousand rupees, whichever is less;" plain reading of above relevant provisions indicate deduction of 'an amount' that is calculated, with reference to aggregate of sums specified in sub-s. (2) at rates specified in sub-s. (1), i.e., in relevant year 100 per cent on first Rs. 5,000, 50 per cent on next Rs. 5,000 and 40 per cent on excess over Rs. 10,000 in balance to such 'aggregate'. What aggregate under s. 80C(2) is in this case cannot be matter of dispute. It is Rs. 32,56 9 paid by assessee. But s. 80C(4) stipulates that 'the aggregate of sums' referred to in s. 80C(2) files ceiling, which in this case is 30 per cent or Rs. 30,000, whichever is less for year. When ss. 80C(2) and 80C(4) are read together, only amount of Rs. 12,635 out of premium paid to extent of Rs. 32,561 qualifies for deductions to be reckoned under s. 80C(1). 'aggregate of sums' on which relief has to be computed under s. 80C(1) gets therefore, reduced in threshold itself, so to say, in view of s. 80C(4) which puts ceiling on amount under s. 80C(2). In other words, ceiling under s. 80C(4) is one qualifying amount of premia paid under s. 80C(2) and not on eligible amount of relief (deduction) under s. 80C. There is no ambiguity in wording of statute even to admit of doubt in favour of assessee's claim. We have, therefore, to uphold order of authorities on this issue. 6 . We have, however, yet to deal with assessee's argument based upon decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Race Club (1 9 7 9 ) 8 CTR (AP) 280 : (1 9 7 9 ) 120 ITR 185 (AP). This decision relates to mode of reckoning relief under s. 80G where s. 80G(1) allows relief at certain percentage of 'aggregate sums specified in sub-s. (2)' (which is aggregate of various donations). So far provisions of s. 80C are comparable with those of s. 80G, s. 80G(4), however, places further ceiling of 10 per cent of gross total income with reference only to 'such part of aggregate of sums' (donations) specified under ss. 80G(2)(a)(iv) and 80G(2)(a)(iv)(v) and 80G(2)(b). Though Prima facie, sections would appear to be similarly worded, it is noted that ceiling in respect of s. 80G applied only to 'part of aggregate' inasmuch as some donations like donations to Prime Minister's Fund were not to be considered for purpose of ceiling. It was in this context that Andhra Pradesh High Court came to conclusion that limitation under s. 80G(4) is only qualification to s. 80G(1) and that s. 80G(4) cannot be read independently. But, in reset of s. 80C limitation is clearly on 'aggregate of sums referred to in sub-s. (2)'. This shows that qualification is on amount payable as premia, etc. Besides, there is no reference to s. 80C(1) at all in s. 80C(4) while opening words in s. 80G(4) are 'The deduction under sub-s. (1) shall not be allowed.' In view of this difference, we will not be justified in conceding assessee's claim with reference to Andhra Pradesh High Court decision. We may also point out that s. 80G(4) has since undergone amendment vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1 9 80, making it clear that ceiling in that sub-section also applies to donations (qualifying amount) and not to deductions (eligible relief). relevant part of Notes on Clauses on Bill reads as under : "Sub-clause (a) seeks to substitute sub-s. (4) of s. 80G. Under proposed amendment, it is being clarified that deduction in respect of aggregate sums of donations to specified funds and charitable institutions in sub- s. (2) of that section shall be limited to smaller of ceiling limits specified in new sub-s. (4)." (1 9 80) 123 ITR (St.) 125). It is clear from above that this amendment is intended only to be classificatory, though it was not made retrospective apparently because it was not intended to disturb those cases where relief had already been allowed on basis of ceiling with reference to deductible amount and not specified donations themselves for earlier years. Hence, even if provisions of ss. 80C are taken to be comparable, we cannot possibly follow more 'liberal' interpretation now after Parliament has approved amendment on basis of Notes on Clauses that such amendment is only classificatory. In Para. 18.2 of Board's circular No. 281 (F.No. 131(17)/80-TPL) dt. 22nd Sept., 1 9 80 relating to instruction of "Finance (No. 2) Act, it is stated as under : "In Hyderabad Race Club vs. Addl. CIT (1 9 7 9 ) 8 CTR (AP) 280 : (1 9 7 9 ) 120 ITR 185 (AP), Andra Pradesh High Court held that ceiling limits prescribed in sub-s. (4) of s. 80G apply with reference to quantum of deduction admissible under that section and not with reference to aggregate amount of qualifying donations referred to in that sub-section. With view to bring out clearly intention underlying this provision, Finance Act has substituted new sub-section for existing sub-s. (4) in order to clarify that limits specified therein will apply with reference to aggregate amount of donations and not with reference to quantum of deduction admissible thereunder."(1 9 81) 131 ITR (St). 22). However, we hasten to add that even otherwise there was scope for more 'liberal' interpretation in language of s. 80G while s. 80C as mentioned i n preceding paragraph is unambiguous and clear. It is under circumstances that we are unable to accept this argument based on analogy of interpretation of s. 80G. 7. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** A. VENKATESWARLU v. INCOME TAX OFFICER