TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of precision instruments and had been started in 1961. Under a deed dated the 2nd November, 1965, the business was taken over by the assessee with retrospective effect as from the 1st January, 1965. In its assessment to income-tax the assessee claimed benefit under s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as it stood at that time, on the ground that it was a newly established industrial undertaking. The ITO found that the assessee had been formed by reconstruction of a business already in existence and that the previous proprietor of the business and his nominees held substantial shares in the assessee-company. The other shareholders of the assessee were also the creditors of the previous business. He, therefore, held that the assessee was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in future years de novo on the basis that there was no reconstruction of the business already in existence. On the application of the CIT, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal has drawn up a statement of case and has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of section 84(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the industrial undertaking of the assessee was not formed by the reconstruction of a business already in existence? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing that for subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and plant previously used. This aspect of the matter was never raised on behalf of the revenue before the Tribunal. In any event, by reason of the language in which the question No. 1 has been framed it is in our view not open to the revenue to agitate this question in the present reference. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, Mr. Sen submitted that in view of the aforementioned observations of the Tribunal in its order as to how the ITO would deal with the claim of the assessee under s. 84 in future, he will not press for an answer to the same. Accordingly, we decline to answer question No. 2. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
