A.KALYANASUNDHARAM, A.M. In this appeal by assessee, only dispute is whether assessee w h o is proprietor of concern Heeralal Chhaganlal Tak, carrying on business of export of jewellery is entitled to deduction @ 5 per cent of exports under s. 80HHC or not. assessee did not turn up at hearing even though notice was served by Registered A.D. and, therefore, we have heard case ex parte and after hearing ld. departmental representative. ld. departmental representative, Mr. Meena submitted that claim b y assessee had been rejected on ground that in earlier year business was done by firm while in year it was by assessee as proprietor and that claim could be given to business and not to assessee, as allowance is to be given by computing turnover of assessee of two years. We have heard departmental representative and have examined records very carefully. In last year business was by firm in which assessee was partner, which business has been taken over by assessee in year as his proprietary business. claim under s. 80HHC is allowable to person who has exported goods. word 'person' has been defined in s. 2(31) of IT Act, 1961 to include individuals, firm, etc. Sec. 80 HHC envisages two categories of deduction to person, viz: (a) 1 per cent of export turnover, and; (b) of such export turnover, which is in excess of figure of preceding year. present claim is for second catagory. To get this benefit following conditions have been laid down in s. 80HHC; (i) claim has to be by one and same person for two years. (ii) export turnover of that person must have been shown increase when compared to figure of export turnover of preceding year. In case before us, assessee was partner in firm in preceding year, which firm is person and assessable entity under Act. assessee was no doubt assessed in respect of profit from that firm, but profits so assessed was after allowing all deductions as are permissible under Act. Can it be said that though in earlier year exports though made by firm is only manner of sharing of profits and should be held to mean or equated with export made by individual? Even in general terms, this proposition could no doubt be accepted, as it is not only matter of convenience of working as any individual partner can claim it as his own except where he is main and major partner, and other partners are only sleeping partners. But this proposition cannot be stretched any further, when it comes to applying status or particular law where firm has been given recognition as assessable unit. entire emphasis, in this section, is on assessable unit as such and since present assessee before us and firm are two separate and distinct entities, comparing turnover of firm with that of individual assessee is not permissible. Since both conditions, as is envisaged above, are not satisfied, claim of assessee is not tenable, and is, therefore, dismissed. *** DULICHAND TAK v. INCOME TAX OFFICER