1984 (8) TMI 126 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred appeal with condonation of delay.
2. Dispute over CIT(A) upholding ITO's order under s. 147(b) r/w s. 144.
3. Reassessment issues related to investment allowance and export markets development allowance.
4. Justification of reopening assessment under s. 147(b) due to retrospective amendment of s. 80J.
5. Legality of restricting relief under s. 80J and withdrawing investment allowance.
6. Entitlement to investment allowance and export market development allowance.
7. Jurisdiction of ITO in reassessment proceedings.

Analysis:
The appeal was found time-barred by 5 days but the delay was condoned based on the assessee's explanation. The dispute arose from the CIT(A) upholding the ITO's order under sections 147(b) and 144, which led to reassessment issues concerning investment allowance and export market development allowance. The ITO reopened the assessment due to excess 80J claim allowed on secured loans, leading to the withdrawal of certain deductions. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment, citing retrospective amendment of s. 80J as valid grounds for reassessment.

Regarding the legality of restricting relief under s. 80J and withdrawing investment allowance, the ITO's actions were upheld as per the amended law. However, the Tribunal disagreed and held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance and export market development allowance based on previous approvals and agreements. The Tribunal further justified the reopening of assessment under s. 147(b) due to the retrospective amendment of s. 80J, in line with legal precedents and observations.

The Tribunal also addressed the jurisdiction of the ITO in reassessment proceedings, confirming that the ITO had the authority to consider items beyond those initially mentioned in the notice for reopening the assessment. The decision was made in favor of the assessee, partially allowing the appeal based on the entitlement to investment allowance and export market development allowance. The Tribunal's decision emphasized adherence to legal provisions and precedents in determining the outcome of the case.