9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under section 80J for assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84. 2. Validity of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 for assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80J: The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80J for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84. The assessee claimed that a new unit was formed for the production of an improved quality of pressure regulators. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim for the assessment year 1980-81 on two grounds: the lack of separate accounts for the old and new units and the assertion that there was merely an expansion of the existing business rather than the formation of a new unit. However, for the subsequent years (1981-82 to 1983-84), the AO allowed the claim based on detailed submissions by the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the claim for the assessment year 1980-81, accepting the assessee's contention that substantial expansion led to the formation of a new, physically identifiable unit. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, the Tribunal found that there was no material evidence to show that the new machines were installed in a physically separate building from the existing premises. The Tribunal noted that the new machines were installed in the existing Die-Casting and Forging section, and the production was dependent on the old unit. There was commonality in electric connections, employees, raw material purchases, and accounting systems. The Tribunal concluded that there was no emergence of a separate and distinct industrial unit, and the circumstances indicated an expansion of the existing business rather than the formation of a new unit. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 1980-81 and restored the AO's order, denying the deduction under section 80J. 2. Validity of Revisionary Jurisdiction under Section 263: The second issue was whether the CIT validly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. The CIT invoked section 263, considering the AO's orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as no new unit had come into existence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's invocation of section 263, emphasizing that the AO's orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed the deduction under section 80J for the subsequent years without any fresh material to justify a departure from the earlier decision rejecting the claim for the assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's contention that the issue had merged with the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 1980-81, as the AO's orders for the subsequent years were not subject to appeal and could be revised by the CIT. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from other judicial precedents cited by the assessee, noting that the issue of setting up a new industrial undertaking had not become final, as the Revenue had challenged the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT validly assumed jurisdiction under section 263, and there was no infirmity in the CIT's order directing the withdrawal of the deduction under section 80J for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1980-81, denying the deduction under section 80J, and dismissed the assessee's appeals against the CIT's orders under section 263 for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84.
|
