9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and use of Raja Singh for the period of years as per requirements of Section 35A of the Act. In the absence of even a claim or assertion to the said effect, the appellant-assessee cannot succeed. Assessing Officer had rightly withdrawn benefit of the investment allowance/development rebate by passing an order under Section 155(4A) of the Act, once he came to know that machinery of value of ₹ 5,20,838/- on which the investment allowance/development rebate of ₹ 1,30,210/- was claimed and allowed was “transferred”. In the absence of even oral assertion that Raja Singh had continued using and operating the machinery, the appeal must fail. - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal Nos. 391/2005 & 392/2005 - - - Dated:- 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. However, within eight years of acquisition, in the Assessment Year 1991-92, plant and machinery of value of ₹ 5,20,838/- on which investment allowance/development rebate of ₹ 1,30,210/- had been claimed and allowed in the Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88 was transferred to the said Raja Singh. This is an admitted fact. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has submitted that Raja Singh, being a partner always had right, title, interest in the aforesaid machinery which was given to him on his retirement. He has referred to and relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s Malabar Fisheries Company, Calicut versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, (1979) 4 SCC 766 and Sunil Siddharth bhai versus Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee cannot succeed. 8. Accordingly, we would hold that the Assessing Officer had rightly withdrawn benefit of the investment allowance/development rebate by passing an order under Section 155(4A) of the Act, once he came to know that machinery of value of ₹ 5,20,838/- on which the investment allowance/development rebate of ₹ 1,30,210/- was claimed and allowed was transferred . In the absence of even oral assertion that Raja Singh had continued using and operating the machinery, the appeal must fail. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, the appeals preferred have to be dismissed in view of the fact that the appellant-assessee has not stated and is not able to establish and show that the machinery had continued to be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
