2008 (9) TMI 141 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee claimed investment allowance under Section 32A (2) - the assessee company was manufacturing needles which are used in the textile machinery as its accessories and therefore assessee was entitled to investment allowance - Tribunal was right in law in allowing the Investment allowance - Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of canceling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263
2. Allowance of Investment allowance and interest

Issue 1: Validity of canceling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263

The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for the grant of investment allowance under Section 32A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initially allowed the investment allowance, but later, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice under Section 263 questioning the eligibility. The Commissioner held that the benefit was wrongly allowed as the manufacture of needles did not fall under the category of 'industrial and agricultural machinery' as per the Ninth Schedule. The Tribunal, in the second appeal, reversed the Commissioner's finding and jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal referred the case to the High Court, which analyzed the relevant provisions and previous judgments. The court held that the investment allowance was rightly allowed to the assessee, citing precedents like Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Mir Mohammad Ali and Aruna Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-Tax. The court distinguished a Karnataka High Court judgment on ball-bearings, emphasizing that the investment allowance was correctly granted to the assessee.

Issue 2: Allowance of Investment allowance and interest

The assessee claimed investment allowance under Section 32A(2) of the Income Tax Act for the year 1977-78. The contention was that the assessee, a company manufacturing needles used in textile machinery, was entitled to the investment allowance. The counsel argued that the Income-tax Officer's decision during the original assessment was correct, and there was no mistake in granting the allowance. The counsel also referred to the Finance Minister's speech introducing the investment allowance scheme. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 32A(2) and the relevant schedules, concluding that the assessee was indeed entitled to the investment allowance. The court further emphasized that the investment allowance was allowable under the law, and the Income-tax Officer's decision to grant the allowance was in accordance with the legal provisions.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the validity of the investment allowance and interest granted. The court decided that the investment allowance was rightly allowed, and no questions were framed on other findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, the court decided in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, answering the reference accordingly.