1983 (11) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for development rebate under Section 34(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of creating a reserve in the relevant previous year.
3. Interpretation of Section 34(3)(a) concerning the timing of reserve creation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Development Rebate under Section 34(3)(a):
The core issue revolves around whether the assessee firm complied with Section 34(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which stipulates conditions for claiming a development rebate. The firm claimed a development rebate of Rs. 99,802 for new machinery purchased in the year ending August 16, 1969, relevant to the assessment year 1970-71. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim because the machinery was neither installed nor used during the relevant accounting year. This rejection was upheld by the Tribunal, and the decision attained finality.

2. Requirement of Creating a Reserve in the Relevant Previous Year:
For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee did not initially claim the development rebate, believing it was only allowable in the previous year 1970-71. Upon the rejection of the claim for 1970-71, the assessee requested the ITO to allow the rebate for 1971-72. The ITO rejected this request on the grounds that the necessary reserve was not created during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, as mandated by Section 34(3)(a). The creation of a reserve in an earlier previous year was deemed insufficient for claiming the rebate in a subsequent year.

3. Interpretation of Section 34(3)(a) Concerning the Timing of Reserve Creation:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that creating a reserve in the earlier previous year sufficed for compliance with Section 34(3)(a). However, this interpretation was challenged by the Revenue, leading to a reference to the High Court. The High Court emphasized that Section 34(3)(a) explicitly requires the reserve to be created in the "relevant previous year" when the machinery is installed or used. The court noted that the provision is in a negative form, asserting that "no deduction under section 33 towards development rebate shall be allowed" unless the specified conditions are met. The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT, which affirmed that the creation of a reserve fund in an earlier year does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

The High Court also cited CIT v. Aruna Sugars Ltd., where a similar issue was adjudicated, concluding that the reserve must be created out of profits of the relevant previous year. The court rejected the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that it would be a misreading of the provision to consider the creation of a reserve in an earlier previous year as compliance with Section 34(3)(a).

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the assessee did not comply with the requirements of Section 34(3)(a) for the assessment year 1971-72, as the necessary reserve was not created in the relevant previous year. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the question was answered in the negative, against the assessee. The Revenue was awarded costs from the assessee, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.