9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m could be corrected.For the reasons recorded above, we reply the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, against the department - - - - - Dated:- 21-10-1970 - Judge(s) : D. K. MAHAJAN., BAL RAJ TULI. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench "C") has referred the following question of law for opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the requirements of proviso (b), clause (vib), of sub-section (2) of section 10, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for creation of development rebate reserve have been satisfied ?" On facts there is no dispute. We are concerned with the assessment year 1961-62. The previous year is the financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, did not comply with an essential condition for the allowance of development rebate. The reserve created on October 29, 1963, cannot help the assessee. The assessee must have carried forward his balance on April 1, 1961, to the books of assessment year 1962-63 and again balance of assessment year 1962-63 must have been carried forward to the books of assessment year 1963-64 on April 1, 1961. The assessee, therefore, created the reserve when the balances for not only assessment year 1961-62 were struck but balances were also struck for the assessment year 1962-63 and 1963-64. Vide his written explanation filed on March 29, 1966, the assessee has argued that reserve can be created at any time provided the entries are passed in the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Veerabhadra Iron Foundry v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mazdoor Kisan Sahkari Samiti. Both these cases considered the decision of the Madras High Court in Veeraswami Nainar's case and have clearly explained it. It is not necessary to cover the same ground again. In a nut-shell if the argument urged by the learned counsel for the department is accepted we would be reading something into the proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vib), namely, that in order to get the development rebate the requirements of the proviso must be satisfied before the close of the account year. In our opinion this course would not be permissible. We cannot read something more into the statutory provision If the intention of the legislature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 17 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, was a reserve within the meaning of section 10(2)(vib), proviso (b), of the Income-tax Act, and their Lordships were of the opinion that such a reserve could not be treated as a reserve for development rebate under section 10(2)(vib), proviso (b), of the Act. The question with which we are concerned was not debated before their Lordships and all that their Lordships said was that the requirements of the proviso had to be complied with. So far as the present case is concerned, the requirements have been complied with. The only argument stressed before us is that the requirements should be complied with before the close of the accounting year or before making up of the profit and loss accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
