K.C. SRIVASTAVA, A.M.: Order In this appeal by assessee relating to asst. yr. 1977-78 order was passed on 26th Aug., 1982 but this order has since been recalled and matter has been re-heard for disposing it of afresh. 2 . only ground raised is that CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of Rs. 7,280 out of legal expenses. disallowance was made by IAC who made assessment in both periods for which assessment was made on firm. While Rs. 1,000 was disallowed in both periods out of legal expenses on ground that for want of details, there was disallowance of Rs. 5,280 in respect of legal expenses in settling claims under IT Act, 1961 (' Act '). In fact, assessee had claimed Rs. 10 ,280 and assessing officer had allowed Rs. 5,000 under s. 80VV of Act. This had effect of disallowing Rs. 5,280. This action of assessing officer has been upheld by CIT(A). 3 . Before us dispute is against this disallowance of Rs. 5,280 though ground speaks Rs. 7,280. details of expenses which had been claimed are as under : . Rs. " Bill No. 76 dt. 2nd May, 1976 of Salve & Salve for consultation and drafting of replies to Tribunal for asst. 500.00 yr. 1970-71 : Bill No. 10 9 dt. 16th Oct., 1976 of Salve & Salve for appearance before Tribunal at Allahabad for asst. yr. 3,500.00 1970-71 : Receipt dt. 20th Nov., 1976 of Shri S.P. Agarwal advocate, Allahabad, in RA No. 117 (A) of 1976-77 for 330.00 asst. yr. 1970-71 and miscellaneous application in IT Appeal No. 1892(A) of 1973-74 Bill No. 518 of 21st Aug., 1976 of Shri A.C. Sinha, Kanpur, before IAC under s. 144B for asst. yrs. 1971-72 2,200.00 and 1973-74 : Bill No. 130 of 22nd Jan., 1977 of Salve & Salve for appearance before AAC, Agra for asst. yrs. 1971-72 and 3,500.00 1973-74 : Bill No. 80 of 18th May, 1976 of Salve & Salve for 250.00 consultation regarding Mr. R.C. Paliwal's appeal ,280.00 . " While, according to IAC and CIT(A), total amount to be allowed i s restricted to Rs. 5,000 under provisions of s. 80VV. assessee challenges this interpretation of that provision. provisions of s. 80VV stand as under : " In computing total income of assessee, there shall be allowed by way of deduction any expenditure incurred by him in previous year in respect of any proceedings before any IT authority or Tribunal or any Court relating t o determination of any liability under this Act, by way of tax, penalty or interest : Provided that no deduction under this section shall, in any case, exceed in aggregate five thousand rupees." It is interpretation of above section that has created controversy in this case. learned counsel for assessee, Shri Harish Salve, has very ably presented case of assessee before us. He submitted that limit for allowance placed under s. 80VV is not in respect of expenses incurred in connection with certain proceedings under Act in whole year but restriction is in respect of expenses incurred on any proceedings before IT Department or Tribunal or any Court relating to determination of any liability under Act by way of tax, penalty or interest. According to learned counsel, proviso to section does put limit on deduction of such expenses but that limit is in respect of ' any proceeding '. In other words, learned counsel for assessee submitted that law places restriction of Rs. 5,000 for each proceeding and not on expenses incurred in whole year. 4. learned counsel for assessee tried to substantiate his argument by submitting that interpretation placed by Revenue authorities would make provision inequitable and irrational. He contended that in case of assessee, it is not only one year's proceedings which come for adjudication in course of particular accounting period. In fact several matters are pending at various stages and taxpayer has to settle his tax liability before different authorities, for assessment as well as appeals and sometimes before Courts. In particular year there may be several years' proceedings before various authorities and Courts whereas in another year there may be proceedings for only one year or two. He, therefore, submitted that if section has to put overall restriction or limitation to allowance of expenses up to Rs. 5,000 for whole year, it would mean that allowance for 10 proceedings would be same as allowance of one or two proceedings. Such interpretation, learned counsel submitted, would make section quite anomalous and liable to be struck down as arbitrary and irrational. learned counsel further contended that though Tribunal may not go into vires of section, it can certainly be persuaded to interpret particular section in such manner so as to make it intra vires of construction. 5 . learned counsel placed before us interpretation of words ' any proceedings ' and submitted that in eyes of law it means judicial business before authority or Court including all possible steps in action from its commencement to execution of judgment. learned counsel submitted that each assessment from beginning till making of assessment can be one proceeding whereas each appeal from beginning till t h e passing of appellate order shall be one proceeding. He, therefore, contended that law should be so interpreted so as to mean that Rs. 5,000 was allowable in respect of each such proceeding relating to determination of tax, penalty or interest under Act. 6 . learned counsel further contended that in respect of business income expenses incurred for settling tax liability has been held to be legitimate business expenditure. In respect of such expenditure if restriction is placed by legislature, interpretation should be given in such manner so as to make provision reasonable and this was also possible construction. For this principle, he referred to observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 378 : (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC). learned counsel also highlighted anomaly in restricting such expenses for each assessment year and submitted that proceeding can go on for several years and if only one proceeding is there, assessee can claim Rs. 5,000 in each assessment year. This, according to him, could not have been intention. 7 . Departmental Representative referred to language of s. 80VV and submitted that legislature has put overall restriction and provision to section clearly says that deduction shall not exceed, in aggregate, Rs. 5,000. He also submitted that s. 37 of Act has also been amended so as to exclude expenses falling under s. 80VV from consideration under s. 37. 8 . In order to consider submissions made before us, we may briefly refer to history of above provision. There used to be some controversy regarding allowance of legal expenses incurred for settling tax liability as deduction in computation of business income. However, there were case l w s which ultimately held that such expenses were allowable business expenditure. However, no such deduction was available to persons having income from sources other than business. On recommendation of Direct Taxes Enquiry Committee (Wanchoo Committee) this provision was made to allow deduction of expenses incurred by assessee on income-tax, proceedings subject to maximum of Rs. 2,000. However, when Bill was referred to select Committee, it was thought that limit of Rs. 2,000 was too low and Select Committee suggested that limit should be raised to Rs. 5,000. It may be mentioned that Direct Taxes Enquiry Committee had recommended that specific provision should be made to permit deduction of all expenses pertaining to income-tax appeals, revisions and references. However, when bill came, these restrictions were placed which were slightly increased by Select Committee. increased by Select Committee. 9. After this Direct Tax Laws Committee, known as Choksi Committee, had recommended that no limit should be put on such expenses as it was artificial. Choksi Committee had, therefore, recommended that reference to s. 80VV in s. 37 should be omitted. According to their recommendation, s. 80VV was to enable assessees having income other than business income to claim such deduction under that section. In addition, committee recommended that limit of Rs. 5,000 should be removed. committee appreciated that artificial ceiling may prove inequitous because taxpayer would necessarily have to defend himself against wrongful assessment. They observed that by very nature of tax proceedings, monetary limit is impractical because sum of Rs. 5,000 may be excessive in large number of cases whilst it may be pittance in some other case. 10 . After this recommendation matter has remained where it was and law had not been further amended or liberalised. In circulars issued by Board interpretation has been made that ceiling of Rs. 5,000 was in respect of expenditure incurred by assessee in any one previous year. 11. With this background we have to consider language of section. In our opinion, language is very clear and categorical. proviso emphatically restricts deduction which cannot exceed in aggregate Rs. 5,000. In main section reference is to deduction of any expenditure incurred by assessee in previous year in respect of such income-tax proceedings. If both things are read together, it would be clear that law has placed restriction for allowance of such expenses incurred in previous year. If intention was otherwise, law would not use words ' in any case exceed in aggregate '. intention has been further confirmed by fact that recommendation of Choksi Committee in this regard has not yet been accepted by amending law. 12. It is true that provision has put artificial ceiling and it is also inequitous in several cases. This has been clearly pointed out by Choksi Committee. However, we have to interpret law as it stands. Shri Salve has been able to vehemently argue in favour of law which should be there and we might have reacted favourably had we power to legislate. However, where language of law is clear, meaning should not be stretched either to extend benefit or to restrict benefit. We are, therefore, of view that provisions of s. 80VV do not permit allowance of expenses in excess of Rs. 5,000 in one year. In this connection, we may mention that there are other examples in Act where such artificial restrictions have been laid down for allowing expenses or for other purposes. One may give example of entertainment expenses which are restricted to Rs. 5,000 in some years and to other figures in certain other years. As regards inequity, it is well-known principle that taxation and equity are sometimes strangers to each other. We cannot, therefore, interpret section in manner contended by learned counsel for assessee only on ground that his interpretation, according to him, will make provision more equitable. 13. No other ground has been pressed. 14. In view of above, appeal is dismissed. *** PALIWAL GLASS WORKS v. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER