1996 (6) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... development rebate in respect of certain machineries installed in its factory in terms of item 21 of the Ninth Schedule and item 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence the withdrawal of the same was not justified ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) was based on the change of opinion on the part of the Income-tax Officer therefore it was not valid in law ?" The assessee is a company, engaged in bleaching and finishing of raw cloth as well as dyeing and finishing of cloth and yarn. In the original assessment for the assessment year 1975-76, the Income-tax Officer allowed initial d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The assessee in the assessment year 1975-76 claimed initial depreciation and development rebate treating the assessee as one engaged in the production and manufacture of textiles. In the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer granted initial depreciation and development rebate treating the assessee as one engaged in the production and manufacture of textiles. But later on by exercising jurisdiction under section 147(b) of the Act, he withdrew the initial depreciation as well as the development rebate granted in the original assessment treating the assessee as one not engaged in the production and manufacture of textiles. A similar issue came up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. S. S. M. Finishing Centre [1990 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-tax Officer allowed initial depreciation as well as development rebate treating the assessee as engaged in the production and manufacture of textiles. Later on, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act and withdrew both the allowances already granted on the basis of an audit note. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the reopening was done under section 147(b) of the Act on the basis of change of opinion. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the reopening was done on a mere change of opinion. It was submitted that the audit party has pointed out only the factual position th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X