9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act"), and added that amount to the total income of the petitioner-assessee. Considering the claim of the assessee for depreciation, the Income-tax Officer disallowed normal depreciation to the extent of Rs. 16,860 and additional depreciation to the extent of Rs. 6,225 by reducing the cost of the assets by the amount of the Central subsidy received by the assessee through SIPCOT. The claim of the assessee for investment allowance in a sum of Rs. 20,750 was also disallowed. Similarly, for the assessment year 1983-84, under section 40A of the Act, the Income-tax Officer disallowed interest in a sum of Rs. 10,544 and also depreciation claimed in a sum of Rs. 32,231. On appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, contended that under the Act, there is no provision corresponding to section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that, in this case, the Appellate Tribunal had not refused to state a case on the ground that no question of law arises, but had rejected the applications as time-barred and, therefore, the reference applications filed by the petitioner are not maintainable and deserve dismissal. Reliance in this connection was also placed by learned counsel for the Revenue upon the decisions in S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 179 (P & H), Govind Singh Bhagwan Singh v. ITO [1972] 84 ITR 214 (All) and Prem Narain Khurana v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 297 (All). In order to maintain an application under section 256(2) of the Act, an applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may, within two months from the date of service of notice of rejection, apply to the High Court and the High Court, if it is not satisfied with the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision, may require the Appellate Tribunal to treat the application as made within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. There is no corresponding provision in the Act and the absence of such a provision is indicative not only of a deliberate departure from the comparable provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but also that an application under section 256(2) of the Act to the High Court is contemplated only in cases where there is a refusal on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal declined to state a case on the ground that no question of law arose and that section 66(1) and (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are in pari materia with section 256(1) and (2) of the Act with a very vital and material distinction in that while section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, contemplated an application to the High Court even in those cases where the Appellate Tribunal had rejected an application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the ground that it was barred by time, there was no corresponding provision incorporated or included in section 256 of the Act and that clearly is a pointer that an application under section 256(2) of the Act to the High Court was contemplated only in suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
