9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Compliance with Section 34(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Eligibility for Development Rebate. 3. Finality and Amendment of Accounts. Detailed Analysis Compliance with Section 34(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The primary issue was whether the assessee-firm complied with the statutory conditions under Section 34(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section mandates that 75% of the development rebate to be allowed must be debited to the profit and loss account and credited to a reserve account. Initially, the assessee did not comply with these conditions in its original return. However, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return with corrected accounts that met the statutory conditions. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the revised return, citing the Madras High Court decision in CIT v. Veeraswami Nainar, arguing that the reserve created was not proper as per Section 34(3). However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the provisions of Section 34(3) and allowed the development rebate. Eligibility for Development Rebate The Tribunal's decision raised the question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had properly complied with the requirements of section 34(3)(a) of the Act, and was, therefore, eligible for the benefit of development rebate for the assessment year 1966-67?" The court examined the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Sections 28, 29, 33, and 34(3)(a). It concluded that the ITO's role was to ensure that the assessee's accounts complied with Section 34(3) before allowing the development rebate. The court found that the section does not prescribe a time limit for completing the accounts or prohibit amendments or rectifications. Finality and Amendment of Accounts The court noted a divergence of opinion among various High Courts on whether the accounts, once made up, could be amended to comply with Section 34(3). The Gujarat High Court had taken a strict view, relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT, that the profit and loss account, once made up, could not be subsequently amended. However, other High Courts, including Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, Allahabad, and Orissa, held that there was no time limit for making the requisite entries and that the accounts could be amended before the assessment was completed. The court agreed with the more lenient view, noting that the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank's case did not explicitly address the issue of finality or amendment of accounts. The court found that the Gujarat High Court's strict interpretation was not justified by the Supreme Court's observations. Conclusion The court held that the assessee-firm had complied with the statutory conditions of Section 34(3) before the assessment was completed, and the ITO was bound to allow the development rebate. The court answered the reference question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and ordered the Revenue to pay the costs of the reference.
|
