9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturing plant installed in his small-scale unit which came into operation after May 31, 1974, the learned Income-tax Officer as well as the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner both have erred and acted illegally in not allowing the deduction prescribed in section 32(1)(vi) of the. Income-tax Act, 1961. " The revisional court, through its order dated January 22, 1982, repelled the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-petitioner in the following words : " It is contended by the assessee that the Income-tax Officer has not allowed deduction under section 32(1)(vi) as well as extra shift allowance. On a query made by me, it was admitted on behalf of the assessee that this claim was not made before the Income-tax Officer n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reof, and from the mere fact that such a claim had been allowed in subsequent years, it could not be assumed that the prescribed conditions justifying a claim for exemption under section 84 were also fulfilled, the Tribunal was not competent to hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have entertained the question of relief under section 84 or to direct the Income-tax Officer to allow the relief. " It is noteworthy that, in the aforesaid finding, the emphasis is that there is no material on the record in support of the contention raised. It appears that this aspect of the matter has escaped the notice of the revisional court in repelling the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-petitioner. In Subhash Chandra Sarvesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was material enough to sustain the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner before the revisional court. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it has been asserted that the relevant material necessary for grant of depreciation under clause (vi) of section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was on the record of the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1975-76. No counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. However, since this question is to be re-examined by the revisional court in the light of our observation, non-filing of the counter-affidavit is immaterial. In Parekh Brothers v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105, a Bench of the Kerala High Court has observed as below : "Accordingly, where an assessee claimed weighted deduction i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The satisfaction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rigid principles or any hard and fast rule can be laid down for this purpose." In paragraph 8 of the aforesaid ruling, it has been indicated that (at page 695 of 187 ITR) : " the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was entitled to admit new grounds or evidence either suo motu or at the invitation of the parties. If he is acting on being invited by the assessee, then there must be some ground for admitting new evidence in the sense that there must be some explanation to show that the failure to adduce earlier the evidence sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
