9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax in cancelling the grant of development rebate. 2. Whether the dissolution of the assessee-firm due to the death of a partner affects the validity of the development rebate granted. 3. Whether the reconstitution of the firm with the surviving partner and heirs of the deceased partner constitutes a transfer of assets. 4. The applicability of s. 34(3)(a) and s. 155(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the context of the development rebate. Summary: Issue 1: Cancellation of Development Rebate by the Commissioner The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's action in cancelling the development rebate granted to the assessee-firm. The Commissioner initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T. Act and cancelled the rebate on the grounds that the conditions for its grant were not fulfilled due to the dissolution of the firm following the death of a partner. Issue 2: Effect of Firm's Dissolution on Development Rebate The court held that the dissolution of the assessee-firm before the expiry of the eight-year period resulted in the non-fulfillment of the statutory conditions for the development rebate. The court referenced Addl. CIT v. Dalmia Magnesite Corpn. [1979] 117 ITR 930, where it was held that the development rebate must be treated as wrongly granted if the firm goes out of existence before the statutory period of eight years. Issue 3: Reconstitution of Firm and Transfer of Assets The court dismissed the argument that the reconstitution of the firm with the surviving partner and heirs of the deceased partner did not constitute a transfer of assets. The court emphasized that the statutory requirement is that the development rebate reserve must be utilized by the assessee for the purposes of the business for a continuous period of eight years, which was not met in this case. Issue 4: Applicability of s. 34(3)(a) and s. 155(5) The court clarified that the cancellation of the development rebate was justified not only in cases of transfer of machinery but also when the statutory reserve is not utilized for the required period. The court noted that the provisions of s. 34(3)(a) were clear and had to be applied as they are, without altering the wording of the statute to exclude hard cases. The court also distinguished the present case from CIT v. Sree Kaliswari Colour Match Works [1978] 112 ITR 346 (Mad), where no transfer was involved in the reconstitution of the firm. Conclusion: The court affirmed the Commissioner's action and held that the development rebate was rightly cancelled due to the non-fulfillment of the statutory conditions. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department. The court also granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, noting that a similar certificate had been granted in the Dalmia Magnesite case.
|
