1997 (12) TMI 89 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding extra shift allowance and deduction under Section 80J for the assessment year 1971-72.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning extra shift allowance and deduction under Section 80J for the assessment year 1971-72. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) identified errors in the original assessment related to depreciation on additions and the eligibility of the Naphthalene Intermediates Expansion Plant for deduction under Section 80J. The ITO proposed rectifications based on these perceived mistakes. The assessee challenged the rectification before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), leading to further appeals to the Tribunal by both the assessee and the Revenue.

The CIT(A) disagreed with the assessee on various issues, including the calculation of extra shift allowance and the eligibility of the NI Expansion Plant for Section 80J deduction. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found the issues to be highly debatable. It noted that the original assessing authority did not commit any apparent error in the assessment. The Tribunal held that the matter was debatable and did not warrant rectification under Section 154 of the Act.

The Revenue contended that the term "concern" referred to the entire company and all units should be working extra shifts to qualify for extra shift allowance. The Tribunal, however, found that the extra shift allowance should be calculated based on the working days of each independent factory or unit, not collectively for the entire company. The Supreme Court's decision in South India Viscose Ltd. was cited to support this interpretation.

Regarding the deduction under Section 80J, the Tribunal analyzed the establishment of the NI Expansion Plant as a separate unit manufacturing a distinct product. It concluded that the original assessing authority did not commit any error in granting the deduction, as the plant qualified as a new industrial undertaking under Section 80J.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the issues were highly debatable, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant rectification under Section 154. The reference was answered in the negative, disposing of the case with no costs awarded.