9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Entitlement to deduction on account of development rebate based on the creation of reserve after the completion of accounts but before filing a revised return. - Interpretation of statutory provisions under sections 33(1) and 34(3)(a) regarding the conditions for claiming development rebate. - Analysis of conflicting views regarding the timing of creating a reserve account for claiming development rebate post filing of the return. Analysis: The case involved a question of law referred by the Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the assessee to deduction on account of development rebate despite creating a reserve after the completion of accounts but before filing a revised return. The relevant assessment year was 1966-67, where the assessee initially did not claim any specific amount as deduction for development rebate but later requested it in the revised return. The dispute arose as the ITO did not allow the claim, citing that the statutory reserve was not created at the time of filing the original return. However, the AAC and the Tribunal allowed the claim, emphasizing that the reserve was created before the assessment and before the filing of the revised return. The court delved into the statutory provisions under sections 33(1) and 34(3)(a) concerning the conditions for claiming development rebate. Section 34(3)(a) mandated that a reserve account be created for claiming the rebate, and 75% of the development rebate to be allowed must be debited to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT, highlighting the requirement of creating a reserve as a condition precedent for obtaining the allowance of development rebate. This led to a divergence of opinion among High Courts regarding the timing of creating the reserve account. The court analyzed the conflicting views on whether an assessee could create a reserve account post filing the return but before assessment for claiming the rebate. It referred to decisions such as R. Venkatasubramaniam v. CIT and CIT v. Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., representing opposing views on the matter. Ultimately, the court agreed with the Allahabad High Court's stance, asserting that there was no statutory bar on amending accounts and creating the reserve before assessment. The court also highlighted section 139(5), allowing an assessee to file a revised return in case of any omission or incorrect statement. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming their entitlement to claim the rebate. In conclusion, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the permissibility of creating a reserve account post filing the return but before assessment for claiming development rebate. The court appreciated the assistance of the advocate who appeared as amicus curiae in the case.
|
