9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1922 (hereafter referred to as " the Act "). The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that for the assessment year 1958-59 in respect whereof the accounting year ended on March 31, 1958, the assessment was first completed by the ITO on July 16, 1960, and while making such assessment, development rebate at the prescribed rate was allowed in favour of the assessee in respect of seven buses which had been purchased by the assessee before December 31, 1957, and had been used by the assessee in its business during the accounting period. It appears that in this assessment certain additions were also made by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, in the appeal, the Appellate As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rules and then subsequently withdraw it under section 35(l 1) of the Act. A specific question as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer first to allow full development rebate under the Rules and subsequently withdraw it under section 35(l 1) of the Act, was referred to the High Court at the instance of the Revenue. The High Court answered the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. After hearing counsel for the assessee, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is perfectly justified having regard to the language of section 10(2)(vib). The material portion of clause (vib) with which we are co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ink that it was necessary for the Income-tax Officer to have first allowed the development rebate and then cancelled it under section 35(l 1) of the Act. Among the conditions which entitle an assessee to claim development rebate is also the condition that the assessee has not disposed of the machinery to any person other than the Government before the expiry of 10 years from the end of the year in which it was acquired and the assessee has to satisfy the game. Such a condition had not been fulfilled by the assessee and this fact came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer when the fresh (de novo) assessment was made by him on August 31, 1967. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in answering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
