9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hips acquired or machinery or plant installed after31-5-1974. Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, however, provided that if the assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the ITO that before 1-12-1973, he had purchased such machinery or plant or had entered into a contract for the purchase of such machinery or plant with the manufacturer or owner of, or a dealer in such machinery or plant, the above prohibition against the allowance of development rebate will not apply. It is the assessee's contention, in the present case, that he had entered into a contract with the suppliers of the machinery before1-12-1973, for the supply of the X-ray machine. The relevant facts are as follows : 3. On22-11-1973, the assessee wrote the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the assessee and the company. As this was done only on13-12-1973, beyond the date within which the contract had to be completed, namely,1-12-1973, he held that the assessee was not entitled to development rebate on the cost of the X-ray machine. The AAC, on appeal by the assessee, agreed with the view taken by the ITO. The assessee is, therefore, in second appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee, appearing for himself, contended that the view taken by the authorities below with regard to the date of entering into the contract was clearly wrong. According to him, the payment of the advance was not a pre-condition imposed by the company for confirming the contract. He referred to the company's letter dated26-11-1973, wherein it is sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was an integral part of the contract and has to be considered as a pre-condition for the conclusion of the contract. As the advance was paid only after1-12-1973, he submitted that the contract was not concluded before1-12-1973. 7. I have considered the rival submissions on this point. In my view, the assessee is correct in his submission that the payment of the advance was not a pre-condition for the conclusion of the contract. There is no material on record to show that the company had imposed any such condition before booking the assessee's order. In fact, the statement contained in the company's letter dated25-11-1973is very categorical to the effect that in response to the assessee's request contained in his letter dated23-11-197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
