TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a (Department of Revenue), against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( the BIFR ) dated 22-11-2000 was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows : 2. In 1992, the third respondent, Rajasthan Explosive Chemicals Ltd., was declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR. The promoters of the company were not able to make a viable proposal for rehabilitation of the third respondent and nurse it back to health. In view of this situation, the BIFR by its order dated 7-7-1999, inter alia, directed the IDBI, the operating agency, to issue an advertisement for change of management. One S , in pursuance of the advertisement, made a proposal for rehabilitation of the company. The pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Department. There is no dispute that the DRS was received by the Income-tax Department on 21-2-2000. After gap of 64 days, the petitioner wrote a letter to the BIFR stating that the third respondent did not supply a copy of the reference made by it under section 15 of the SICA, Form etc. It was also stated that the third respondent also failed to file any supportive evidence with regard to the envisaged reliefs expected from the Income-tax Department. It was pointed out therein that without the requisite detail it was not possible for the Income-tax Department to examine the case on merits. By the same letter, it was stated that in the circumstances it was not possible for the Income-tax Department to give its consent in respect of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc.) on/before 31-12-2000 and not to impose any interest, penalty, fine etc. on account of delay due to closure of the factory. ( iii )To exempt applications of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of reliefs and concessions to be availed by the company from various agencies concerned provided in the rehabilitation scheme. ( iv )To allow the company to carry forward and set-off of investment allowance and unabsorbed depreciation/unabsorbed losses for all the years during which the revival scheme is implemented." 5. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the scheme circulated pursuant to the order dated 22-11-2000, filed an appeal before the AAIFR. On 16-5-2001 the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the AAI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made from the order of the BIFR dated 8-5-2000 inasmuch as the petitioner was directed to allow the aforesaid exemptions and to carry forward and set off the envisaged allowance and unabsorbed depreciation losses for all the years during which the revival scheme is implemented. The sanctioned scheme also marks a departure from the order dated 8-5-2000 on account of a direction to the petitioner to exempt from applicability of payment of minimum alternative tax under section 115( a )( b ) of Income-tax Act, 1961, till the accumulated losses are wiped out. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the rehabilitation scheme circulated by virtue of the order of the BIFR dated 14-2-2000 did not contain the requisite details. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, a sum of Rs. 500 lakhs was invested towards capital expenditure and working capital as per the scheme. It was also argued that the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the scheme in the garb of attacking the order of the BIFR dated 22-11-2000. It cannot at this stage make the scheme unworkable. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. While it is true that the petitioner did not appear before the BIFR on 2-5-2000 and also did not file any objections to the scheme, it is also equally true that the DRS did not contain the requisite details and unless they were made available to the petitioner, it could not have examined the matter on merits. In the DRS, the BIFR had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioned rehabilitation scheme was circulated the Income-tax Department was bound to grant reliefs and concessions to the third respondent. Thus, there was a big difference between the order dated 8-5-2000 by which the scheme was sanctioned but not circulated and the order dated 22-11-2000 pursuant to which the scheme was circulated. Since the petitioner was not hurt by the order dated 8-5-2000 and was adversely affected by the order dated 20-11-2000, it was justified in filing the appeal against the later order. 10. The draft scheme also does not furnish the details of cash flow in case the income-tax reliefs were not to be made available to the third respondent. It was also not provided as to what reliefs under section 41(1) had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
