1982 (7) TMI 144 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act.
2. Weighted deduction under Section 35B of the IT Act.
3. Extra shift allowance for generators and motors.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act:

The appeal challenges the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the IT Act. The CIT had issued a notice under Section 263, finding the assessment order by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The assessee argued that the CIT lacked jurisdiction because the assessment order was passed with the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) under Section 144B of the Act. The CIT contended that the ITO did not apply his mind to the assessee's claim, making the order erroneous. The Tribunal held that the CIT had jurisdiction under Section 263 because the assessment order was ultimately that of the ITO, and the ITO's failure to address the assessee's claims rendered the order prejudicial to the Revenue.

2. Weighted Deduction under Section 35B of the IT Act:

The ITO had allowed the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35B, except for certain expenses amounting to Rs. 9,28,415. The CIT directed the ITO to revise the assessment, withdrawing the weighted deduction for expenses amounting to Rs. 38,536, which included charges for inspection, bank charges, cost of excise revenue stamps, stationery, and miscellaneous expenses. The Tribunal noted that the ITO's order did not mention the basis for allowing the weighted deduction, nor did it reference any Tribunal decisions supporting the assessee's claim. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's direction to withdraw the weighted deduction for all items except stationery, where only 50% of the amount should be withdrawn.

3. Extra Shift Allowance for Generators and Motors:

The assessee had claimed extra shift allowance for generators and motors at its Nabha, Bangalore, and Rajahmundry units, which the ITO had allowed. The CIT withdrew this allowance, citing that electrical machinery, including generators and motors, were not eligible for extra shift allowance. The Tribunal disagreed, referencing previous Tribunal decisions that distinguished generators and motors from stationary electrical machinery. The Tribunal concluded that generators and motors did not fall under the category of items specifically denied extra shift allowance and that the CIT was not justified in withdrawing the extra shift allowance granted by the ITO.

Summary:

The Tribunal held that the CIT had jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act to revise the assessment order, as the ITO's failure to address the assessee's claims rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's direction to withdraw the weighted deduction under Section 35B for all items except stationery, where only 50% should be withdrawn. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT was not justified in withdrawing the extra shift allowance for generators and motors, as these items did not fall under the category of electrical machinery specifically denied such allowance. The appeal was thus partly allowed.