9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 8 for granting extra shift allowance on machinery and plant. 2. Validity of rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Controversy regarding the application of rule 8 to a seasonal factory for calculating extra shift allowance. Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Rule 8: The case involved the interpretation of rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules for granting extra shift allowance on machinery and plant. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed 50% of normal depreciation as extra shift allowance. However, upon rectification, it was held that the allowance should be calculated proportionately to the actual days the machinery and plant worked, based on a normal working year of three hundred days. This interpretation led to a significant reduction in the allowance granted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noted a difference of opinion between different Tribunal Benches on the interpretation of rule 8, creating a controversial and conflicting situation. 2. Validity of Rectification under Section 154: The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to rectify the extra shift allowance granted to the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the rectification, emphasizing that the controversy surrounding the interpretation of rule 8 made it unsuitable for rectification under section 154. The Tribunal further dismissed the appeal by the Income-tax Officer, stating that the alleged error was not a mistake apparent from the record and that the Income-tax Officer had erred in reopening the debatable question of the applicability of rule 8. 3. Controversy Regarding Rule 8 Application to Seasonal Factories: The Tribunal highlighted the conflicting interpretations of rule 8 by different High Courts, including the Punjab High Court. The Allahabad High Court's decision in a previous case was cited to show that the Income-tax Officer's calculation of the extra shift allowance was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the question of applying rule 8 to seasonal factories was not free from controversy and that reopening this debatable issue through rectification was erroneous. The Supreme Court's precedent in T. S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers was cited to emphasize that a decision on a debatable point of law does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. In conclusion, the High Court affirmed in favor of the assessee, stating that the rectification under section 154 was unwarranted due to the debatable nature of the issue. The judgment highlighted the importance of a mistake being obvious and patent for rectification under section 154, emphasizing that debatable points of law do not qualify as apparent errors. The assessee was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200.
|
