9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uence that flows is that assessee has to be held entitled to claim the benefit of investment allowance within the meaning of section 32A(8B). Indeed, once on the facts it is held that the assessee has fulfilled the required criteria, then consequential benefit has to be granted as a logical conclusion flowing from such finding. - - - - - Dated:- 3-1-2005 - Judge(s) : A. M. SAPRE., ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by A.M. Sapre J.- This is an income-tax reference made by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) in R.A. No. 99/Ind/1993, which arises out of I.T.A. No. 897/Ind/1992, decided by the Tribunal on May 20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was entered into by the assessee with M/s. Servotech for purchase of the plant and machinery in April, 1986. The assessee is, therefore, entitled to investment allowance." The Revenue having felt aggrieved by the grant of the aforementioned benefit to the assessee, prayed for reference to this court. The Tribunal having acceded to the prayer so made, has referred the aforesaid question to this court for answer. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel, with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Shri S. C. Goyal, learned counsel for the assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the record of the case, we are of the view that the question referred has to be answered against the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any question on this factual issue by seeking to challenge the finding of the Tribunal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 made the following pertinent observations in regard to the powers of this court while hearing the income-tax reference under section 66(1)/256(1) ibid: "Before we conclude, we must deal with the point raised by Mr. Sastri that the High Court erred in law in preferring the findings of the Income-tax Officer to that of the Appellate Tribunal. It is not necessary to decide this question, but it seems to us that, in a reference, the High Court must accept the findings of fact made by the Appellate Tribunal and it is for the person who has applied for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court and consider whether the finding was justified or not." Yet, in one of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 178, their Lordships reiterated the aforesaid principle, though without referring to the aforesaid earlier view on the subject, in the following words: "The High Court overlooked the cardinal principle that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact-finding authority. A decision, on fact, of the Tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such as could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. In this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the assessee on merits. Such does not appear to be the case. The submission of learned counsel for the Revenue was that the question referred does include within its sweep even the question in regard to the factual finding and hence, invests this court with power to examine the factual finding is not acceptable to us. Indeed, this submission is expressly negatived by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned three cases relied on by us. In our opinion, the Revenue should have been careful while praying for a question under section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal as to which questions are material and how they should be worded so as to entitle the court to examine the whole controversy which was being debated before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Revenue. In other words, this court answered the reference in favour of the Revenue due to the peculiar and pointed question referred to this court for answer. It is essentially on the strength of the question and its specific wording: this court went into the question of fact in the context of the requirement of notification and answered the reference in favour of the Revenue. As observed supra, in this case also, if the Revenue had persuaded the Tribunal for referring the question on the facts, this court too would have been able to go into that aspect of the case also and answered the same one way or the other. This has not been done and hence, the decision though rendered in this very case in favour of the Revenue, cannot be of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
