9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of development rebate was the subject-matter of an earlier order of the AAC, Special Range III, New Delhi. The assessee had not claimed development rebate on these two items though it had claimed on other items. The ITO did not allow any development rebate on the ground that the assessee did not produce the necessary vouchers regarding plant and machinery on which development rebate is claimed. The first appellate authority came to the conclusion that there was no proper opportunity and had, therefore, sent back the matter to the ITO 'to enable him to satisfy on this point before the issue of allowance of development rebate can be finally adjudicated upon'. When the matter went back to the ITO, the assessee took the opportunity of clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 778 as explaining the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by him. A number of other decisions were cited by both sides. 3. We have carefully considered the records as well as the arguments. We have no doubt that there is no necessity to discuss the law on the subject which, in our opinion, is well established. The ITO has jurisdiction only in respect of matters sent to him and the entire assessment is not open before him. It is, however, the assessee's case that the question of development rebate was restored to the ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a number of cases following the rational of the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Sheetalaya [1979] 117 ITR 658, the Calcutta High Court in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 660 and the Madras High Court in CIT v. Bluemount Ceramics Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 385. Especially in the case of development rebate the question of admissibility would arise only on a reserve being created and such reserve under the statute can be created in a later year when there are profits to enable the assessee to create the reserve. There is no question of set off also during the year. Hence, the departmental objection as to the jurisdiction in our opinion is even otherwise academic. 4. As for merits, we are in agreement with the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
