2003 (1) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in withdrawing rehabilitation allowance granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the properties which were extensively damaged ? - The Tribunal was not right in withdrawing the entire rehabilitation allowance of Rs. 26,910 granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 33B without working out the amount of deduction on the basis of the formula, namely, the written down value minus the moneys payable and scrap value , if any, as contemplated by section 32(1)(iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, which was applicable even in respect of the assets extensively damaged leading to discontinuance of business under section 33B, for ascertaining the rehabilitation allowance of 60 per cent. of the amount of deduction so worked out.

Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of rehabilitation allowance under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification for remanding the matter to the Income-tax Officer to work out relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of Rehabilitation Allowance under Section 33B:
The primary issue in both references was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in withdrawing the rehabilitation allowance granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for properties extensively damaged by flood.

Facts and Arguments:
- The assessee claimed rehabilitation allowance due to extensive damage caused by a flood.
- The Income-tax Officer initially denied the claim, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed it, reducing the claimed amount and granting 60% of the written down value of the damaged assets.
- The Tribunal upheld the allowance for terminal loss under Section 32(1)(iii) but withdrew the rehabilitation allowance for other assets, arguing it would result in double deduction.
- The Tribunal's decision was contested by the assessee, who argued that Section 33B covers both "damage" and "destruction" and that the allowance should be calculated based on the written down value minus "moneys payable" and "scrap value" as per Section 32(1)(iii).

Court's Analysis:
- Section 33B provides for rehabilitation allowance in cases of extensive damage or destruction due to natural calamities, calculated as 60% of the deduction allowable under Section 32(1)(iii).
- Section 32(1)(iii) deals with depreciation and terminal allowance for assets "sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed," and the deduction is the shortfall between the written down value and "moneys payable" plus scrap value.
- The court noted that the Tribunal erred by not considering the extensive damage under Section 33B and by not applying the correct formula for calculating the allowance.

Judgment:
- The Tribunal was not justified in withdrawing the rehabilitation allowance without applying the formula of written down value minus "moneys payable" and "scrap value" as per Section 32(1)(iii).
- The court emphasized that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not correctly apply the parameters of Section 32(1)(iii) and merely reduced the claimed amount by 60%, which was not in line with the statutory requirements.

2. Justification for Remanding the Matter to the Income-tax Officer to Work Out Relief under Section 80J:
- The second question in both references related to whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Income-tax Officer to work out relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- The assessee did not press for this question during the hearing, and it was therefore disposed of as unanswered.

Conclusion:
- The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in withdrawing the rehabilitation allowance without correctly applying the statutory formula.
- The references were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the court directed that the rehabilitation allowance should be recalculated based on the correct interpretation of Sections 33B and 32(1)(iii).

← Previous Next →