Punjab-Haryana High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vardhaman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. on 11 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)149CTR(P&H)288
JUDGMENT Agrawal, J.
The following two questions of law are sought to be referred to this court for opinion under section 256(2) of the Income Tax A ct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to `as the Act):
"1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the records which could be rectified under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing extra-shift allowance on electric installations and electric machinery marked `N.E.S.A in the Appendix I read with rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962"
2. Assessment was originally framed for the assessment year 1977-78 under section 143(3) of the Act on 1-3-1980 allowing extra-shift allowance (E.S.A.) on the value of the electric installation set up by the assessee-company in Unit No. II. The assessing officer, later on took the view that E.S.A. had been wrongly allowed on the electric installation because, in Appendix I (Table of Rates at which depreciation is admissible) appended to the Income Tax Rules 1962, , it was specifically mentioned as not allowable. The assessing officer, therefore, withdrew the E.S.A. vide order passed under section 154 of the Act. The assessee went in appeal with the plea that electric installation was part and parcel of the plant and machinery and E.S.A. had been rightly allowed in the original assessment order. It had earlier been allowed in the assessment year 1973-74 by the Tribunal. The Commissioner accepted the assessees plea and cancelled the order passed under section `. The Tribunal dismissed the revenues appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner.
3. Shri B.S. Gupta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-department, has, in support of his application, placed reliance upon the following decisions:
1983 Tax LR 476 (MP) (sic), CIT v. General Electric Co. of India ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 246 (Cal), CIT v. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 525 (Mad) 159 ITR 302 (Cal) (sic), and 219 ITR 200 (P&H) (sic)
4. Shri G.S. Sandhawalia, the learned counsel for the assessee, was opposed the revenues application with the plea that the E.S.A. was rightly allowed that there was no justification to invoke section 154 so as to withdraw the E.S.A. Looking to the nature of the controversies, the questions sought to be answered to appear to be questions of law arising from the Tribunals order.
The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to state the case and refer to this court for opinion the questions of law, reproduced in the first paragraph of this order.