1988 (11) TMI 146 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of investment allowance under s. 32A(5)(c) r/w s. 155(4A)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of s. 32A(5) regarding distribution of assets on dissolution of a partnership firm.
3. Applicability of the judgment in Malabar Fisheries case to the withdrawal of investment allowance.
4. Reliance on judgments of the Madras High Court regarding withdrawal of investment allowance.
5. Contravention of law in withdrawing investment allowance.
6. Consideration of judicial pronouncements supporting the assessee's position.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the withdrawal of investment allowance under s. 32A(5)(c) r/w s. 155(4A)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessing officer withdrew the allowance due to the distribution of assets and liabilities upon the dissolution of a partnership firm, which was deemed to contravene the provisions of the Act.

2. The issue revolved around the interpretation of s. 32A(5) concerning the distribution of assets on the dissolution of a partnership firm. The appellant contended that such distribution should not be considered a sale or transfer under s. 32A(5), and the investment allowance should not be withdrawn in such cases.

3. The appellant also argued that the judgment in the Malabar Fisheries case was applicable to their situation. They claimed that the investment allowance, once granted, cannot be validly withdrawn based on the circumstances of their case, as per the principles laid down in the Malabar Fisheries case.

4. The appellant challenged the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on judgments of the Madras High Court. They argued that subsequent decisions and the Supreme Court's decision in the Malabar Fisheries case necessitated a re-evaluation of the Madras High Court's earlier rulings on the withdrawal of investment allowance.

5. It was contended that the withdrawal of the investment allowance, amounting to Rs. 51,754, was contrary to the provisions of the law. The appellant asserted that the addition made by the ITO on this ground should be deleted as it did not align with the legal requirements.

6. The appellate tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant judicial pronouncements, ruled in favor of the assessee. Citing precedents like the Nipa Twisting Works case, the tribunal held that the investment allowance granted to the assessee could not be withdrawn. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to take appropriate action in favor of the firm and the partners.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the investment allowance could not be withdrawn in the given circumstances, as supported by legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the IT Act.