1980 (3) TMI 82 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of relief under section 84 of the Income Tax Act and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1966-67.

Assessment of relief under section 84:
The assessee, a registered firm, claimed relief under section 84 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1966-67. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) declined to grant relief for machinery not used during the relevant previous year, allowing only a partial relief. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to relief under section 84 if machinery had been purchased before the computation period, even if not used during the relevant year. The Tribunal directed the ITO to verify the claim and allow relief if found true.

Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation:
Regarding the set-off of Rs. 55,752 representing a loss from the assessment year 1964-65, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision and directed the ITO to determine if the loss included any unabsorbed depreciation not adjusted in the partners' accounts. If so, the unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed for the assessment year 1966-67.

Legal Analysis:
Section 84 of the Income Tax Act provides for relief on profits derived from industrial undertakings based on capital employed. Rule 19 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, outlines the computation of capital employed. The definition of "written down value" in section 43(6) is crucial in determining the capital employed. The Tribunal's interpretation of the rules and provisions led to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84 for machinery purchased before the computation period.

Precedent and Decision:
The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents, including a Bombay High Court case, and a decision by the Madras High Court in a similar case. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on both issues, stating that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84 and the unabsorbed depreciation should be set off against the income for the assessment year 1966-67. The references were answered in favor of the assessee, and costs were awarded.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming the assessee's entitlement to relief under section 84 and the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1966-67. The legal analysis of the provisions and precedents supported the decision in favor of the assessee.