9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and material, which are relevant for this controversy, have been set out at very great length in the order of the Accountant Member as also that of the Judicial Member. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to repeat these, again, at any great length. Briefly stated, these facts are as follows: 3. The assessee, which is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of jute products, purchased certain items of machinery from a German firm of the name of Spinbau GMBH in 1957 for a price, whose rupee equivalent was Rs. 4,89,318. The machinery was delivered to the assessee on7-6-1957and the entire purchase price was also paid by the assessee to the suppliers. It claimed depreciation and development rebate in respect of this machinery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims arising out of the contract concluded between the parties, in respect of the supply of the abovementioned machinery. The stipulated amount of Rs. 2,69,433 was received in the following manner: 1962-Rs. 92,102 and 1963-Rs. 1,77,331. The assessee credited the above amounts to the "machinery account". For the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, it claimed depreciation and development rebate on such reduced value of the machinery. 5. The ITO was of the view that as the assessee had got back Rs. 2,69,433 from the suppliers of the machinery, it should have reduced that amount from the original price of Rs, 4,89,318 and should have claimed depreciation and development rebate only on such reduced amount for the assessment year 1958-59. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and by the department and his reasons for not accepting the assessee's appeal. The learned Judicial Member, in a much shorter order running to about 8 pages, has, also, briefly stated the facts and the arguments, from either side, and has given his reasons as to why the assessee is entitled to succeed in its contention that the action under section 147(a), taken by the ITO for this year, was misconceived. 9. In advancing arguments before me, Shri N.K.P. Salve, the learned representative of the assessee, after referring to the facts of the case, attached the initiation of proceedings under section 147(a) on the following grounds, namely, that the reasons given by the ITO, in his report to the Commissioner for reopening the assessment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled. In this case, he pointed out, the claim for damages, made by the assessee, was settled only on 17-5-1961 and there was no question of treating this as accruing to the assessee in the year 1957, as a reduction in the price of the machinery. In the circumstances, he submitted that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) was illegal and unwarranted as the assessee has not withheld any material particulars relevant for the assessment year 1958-59. 10. On behalf of the revenue, the learned departmental representative relied strongly on the order, dated20-6-1979, of the learned Accountant Member, with which the learned Judicial Member is in disagreement. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and I find myself in compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
