2004 (10) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Development rebate on plant and machinery - Whether Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the development rebate on plant and machinery for which agreement to supply was entered into on December 28 1973? - Obviously date December 28 1973 is subsequent to December 1 1973. Whereas the requirement of section 16(c) is that the date of agreement must be before December 1 1973 and not subsequent to December 1 1973. In this view of the matter and under these circumstances one of the essential conditions necessary for claiming development rebate provided in section 16(c) of the Finance Act is not satisfied and hence the assessee was not eligible/qualified to claim the benefit of development rebate by virtue of the notification dated May 28 1971. tribunal s order is not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974 regarding the eligibility for development rebate based on the date of agreement for plant and machinery.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was tasked with answering a question of law related to the eligibility of a private limited company to claim development rebate on plant and machinery for which an agreement to supply was entered into on December 28, 1973. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Finance Act, 1974, specifically focusing on section 16(c) which outlined the conditions for claiming development rebate post the issuance of a notification discontinuing the benefit after May 31, 1974. The court highlighted the significance of the date of December 1, 1973, as a crucial factor in determining eligibility for the rebate.

The court emphasized that as per the requirements of section 16(c), it was mandatory for the assessee to provide evidence that the agreement for plant and machinery was entered into before December 1, 1973, in order to claim the development rebate. The court noted that the date of the agreement in question, i.e., December 28, 1973, was subsequent to the crucial date specified in the legislation. Therefore, the court concluded that the assessee did not fulfill the essential condition necessary for claiming the development rebate, rendering them ineligible based on the specific date mentioned in the question referred to the court.

Furthermore, the court rejected the argument put forth by the counsel for the assessee, which attempted to rely on certain dates of supply of machinery/agreement prior to December 1, 1973. The court maintained that it was bound to consider only the date explicitly mentioned in the reference question, i.e., December 28, 1973, and could not take into account any other date for answering the reference. The court reiterated the principle that it must base its decision solely on the terms of the reference without deviating from the specifics provided.

Additionally, the court dismissed the contention related to the Companies Act raised by the counsel for the assessee, emphasizing that regardless of whether the agreement was entered into by the promoter or the company, the crucial factor was the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in section 16(c) of the Finance Act. Since the date of the agreement was after December 1, 1973, the court found no merit in the submission and ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the Tribunal's decision allowing the development rebate was not justified.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh answered the question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, determining that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of development rebate on plant and machinery based on the agreement dated December 28, 1973. The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions and the specific date requirements outlined in the legislation.