1986 (8) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Development Rebate.
2. Competence of Income-tax Officer to Rectify the Order u/s 154.
3. Doctrine of Merger and its Applicability.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Development Rebate:
The core issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the development rebate without creating the development rebate reserve as mandated u/s 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the development rebate is allowed u/s 33 subject to the provisions of section 34. Section 34(3)(a) specifies that the rebate "shall not be allowed" unless an amount equal to 75% of the development rebate is debited to the profit and loss account and credited to a reserve account. The court emphasized that compliance with these conditions is mandatory. The assessee had not created the reserve fund at the time of making up the profit and loss account for the relevant year, thus failing to meet the conditions prescribed for the rebate.

2. Competence of Income-tax Officer to Rectify the Order u/s 154:
The court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had the competence to rectify the order u/s 154. Section 154 allows rectification of any mistake apparent from the record by the authority which passed the order. Sub-section (1A) of section 154 specifies that any matter not considered and decided in an appeal or revision can be rectified by the original authority. The court found that the part of the order allowing development rebate of Rs. 11,011 was not the subject-matter of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and was left untouched. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer had the competence to rectify the mistake in that part of the order.

3. Doctrine of Merger and its Applicability:
The court discussed the doctrine of merger, which is not a rigid and universal application. It held that the order of the Income-tax Officer merges with the appellate order only to the extent of the subject-matter considered and decided by the appellate authority. Since the issue of development rebate on dies and tools was the only matter considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the rest of the order did not merge and could be rectified by the Income-tax Officer. The court cited several precedents, including Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G. V. Shah, ITO [1975] 98 ITR 255 (Guj), to support this view.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the conditions prescribed u/s 34(3)(a) were not met by the assessee, making them ineligible for the development rebate. The Income-tax Officer was competent to rectify the order u/s 154 as the mistake was apparent from the record. The question referred was answered in the negative, against the assessee, and in favor of the Revenue.