9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Justification of granting allowance to the assessee at a later stage. Analysis: Issue 1: Entitlement to development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act The case involved an assessee, a Hindu undivided family engaged in various businesses, including bus transport and lorry service. The assessee claimed a development rebate on a new bus and lorry purchased after December 31, 1957, for the assessment year 1959-60. The Income-tax Officer initially denied the rebate, questioning whether the bus and lorry qualified as plant or machinery. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the denial based on the assessee's failure to comply with the conditions of section 10(2)(vib), specifically regarding setting aside 75% of the rebate to a reserve account. However, the Tribunal later directed the Income-tax Officer to compute the rebate upon production of the necessary books. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view, emphasizing the statutory requirement of setting aside the reserve fund at the time of closing the accounts. The Court held that compliance with the conditions of the proviso to section 10(2)(vib) was essential for claiming the development rebate. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to allow development of the business from the reserve fund, making the reserve entries a substantive requirement, not a mere formality. Issue 2: Justification of granting allowance to the assessee at a later stage The High Court rejected the Tribunal's stance that the assessee could readjust the accounts by making the reserve at a later time. It emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate financial records and complying with statutory provisions at the time of closing the accounts. The Court reiterated that the conditions imposed by the statute for claiming exemptions or allowances cannot be disregarded, even if they are perceived as theoretical or technical. The Court emphasized that the plain language of the statute must be adhered to, without implying exemptions or allowances beyond what is explicitly stated. Therefore, the Court held that since the assessee had not set apart 75% of the development rebate to the reserve account as required, the benefit of section 10(2)(vib) could not be claimed. In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions referred to it in the negative, ruling against the assessee. The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with statutory conditions for claiming allowances or exemptions under the Income-tax Act, highlighting that the legislative intent must be upheld without deviation based on perceived technicalities.
|
