9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the provisions of section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the question of whether a claim not made before the Income-tax Officer can be raised in subsequent proceedings. Interpretation of Section 32(1)(vi): The assessee-petitioner filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking deduction under section 32(1)(vi) for a manufacturing plant installed in a small-scale unit. The revisional court initially declined to interfere, citing the precedent in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1, emphasizing that claims not made before the Income-tax Officer cannot be raised later. Misappreciation of Legal Ruling: The petitioner contended that the revisional court misinterpreted the ruling in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 and failed to consider the material supporting the claim. The court highlighted the importance of having material on record to sustain a claim, as seen in previous legal precedents. Precedents and Legal Interpretation: Reference was made to the case of Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 619, where it was clarified that if there is material supporting a claim, even if not formally made before the Income-tax Officer, the claim should be considered. Additionally, the ruling in Parekh Brothers v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 emphasized that claims made in a revision application must be duly considered. Scope of Judicial Discretion: The judgment also discussed the scope of judicial discretion in admitting new grounds or evidence, as outlined in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688. It was emphasized that each case should be considered based on its own facts, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the discretion to admit new grounds if satisfied with the reasons provided. Decision and Remand: The High Court found that the revisional court erred in dismissing the revision petition without examining the merits of the claim. The judgment was quashed, and the case was remanded back to the revisional court for a reconsideration of the claim in light of the legal discussions provided. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
