1976 (6) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to development rebate for the assessment year 1963-64.
2. Compliance with statutory reserve requirements under section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Development Rebate for the Assessment Year 1963-64:

The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a development rebate of Rs. 15,913 for the assessment year 1963-64. The Tribunal had held that the assessee was entitled to this rebate, but this decision was contested by the Income-tax authorities.

The facts revealed that the assessee had purchased a dryer in 1961, with the actual cost being Rs. 1,03,095. The assessee did not create the necessary reserve for the development rebate in the assessment year 1962-63 due to insufficient income. In the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee created a reserve of Rs. 20,000 and claimed a rebate of Rs. 15,913.

2. Compliance with Statutory Reserve Requirements under Section 34(3)(a):

The High Court examined the statutory requirements under sections 33 and 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 33 allows for a development rebate on new machinery or plant, subject to the provisions of section 34. Specifically, section 34(3)(a) mandates that an amount equal to 75% of the development rebate must be debited to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year and credited to a reserve account.

The Court found that the creation of the reserve in the relevant assessment year (1962-63) was a condition precedent for allowing the development rebate. Since the assessee did not comply with this requirement in 1962-63, the deduction could not be allowed in the subsequent year (1963-64).

The Court referred to previous judgments, including Steelsworth (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Subhlaxmi Mills Ltd., which emphasized that the statutory reserve must be created in the year of installation of the machinery or plant. Failure to do so precludes the allowance of the development rebate.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in allowing the development rebate for the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee had not created the necessary reserve in the assessment year 1962-63, as required by section 34(3)(a). Therefore, the development rebate could not be carried forward to the subsequent year. The question of law was answered in the negative and against the assessee.

Judgment:

The reference was answered accordingly, with both judges concurring in the decision.