2003 (9) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Investment allowance on the plant and machinery - plant and machinery on which investment allowance was granted was not in existence and what was sold was steel recovered from the scrap of plant and machinery - Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 155(4A) whereby the investment allowance allowed at the time of the original assessment stood withdrawn - there is no question of application of section 155(4A)(a)

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of section 155(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding withdrawal of investment allowance granted on plant and machinery due to scrapping and subsequent sale of converted material.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the withdrawal of investment allowance granted to a private limited company for the assessment year 1977-78. The issue arose when the plant and machinery, on which the investment allowance was allowed, was scrapped due to inefficiency, and the material obtained from the scrap was sold. The Assessing Officer sought to withdraw the investment allowance under section 155(4A) of the Act, claiming that the rights of the assessee were extinguished, thus satisfying the condition of "otherwise transferred." However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sided with the assessee, stating that the plant and machinery were not transferred, but only the steel obtained from the scrap was sold.

The court examined the provisions of section 155(4A) which deem the investment allowance to have been wrongly allowed if the plant and machinery is sold or otherwise transferred within a specified period. The Revenue contended that the term "otherwise transferred" should include any item obtained from the original plant and machinery, such as the steel in this case. The court noted that the Tribunal correctly held that the machinery itself was not sold or transferred, but only the steel derived from the scrapped machinery was sold. The court emphasized the clear language of the Act and rejected the broad interpretation of "otherwise transferred" proposed by the Revenue.

Referring to the decision in Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 647, the court reiterated that for an asset to be considered transferred, its existence is essential. Since the plant and machinery no longer existed and only the steel was sold, the court concluded that section 155(4A) could not be applied in this case to withdraw the investment allowance. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, supporting the assessee's position. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.