Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In so far as question No. 3 is concerned, a reference of a similar question having been called for in the case of the assessed itself in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 (CIT v. Modipon Ltd. (No. 1) [1991] 189 ITR 344 (All)), in our opinion, a reference on the question posed has to be called for.

9. Coming to question No. 4, the claim of the assessed for investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on three grounds, viz., (i) the plant and machinery on which the investment allowance had been claimed was not covered by item No. 27 of the Ninth Schedule, (ii) no evidence was adduced to show that the machinery in question was new, and (iii) no evidence was adduced to prove that the machinery was actually installed or first put to use during the relevant previous year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though he held that the assessed was producing "organic heavy Chemicals" falling in entry 27 of the Ninth Schedule he concurred with the Assessing Officer that the claim was to be otherwise disallowed on grounds (ii) and (iii) above. Although, the Revenue was not in appeal before the Tribunal against the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessed was producing "organic heavy Chemicals", yet the Tribunal went on to re-examine the issue and did endorse the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We feel that the Revenue having accepted the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it is too late in the day for it to reagitate the issue as to whether the assessed is producing "organic heavy Chemicals" or not, as has been attempted before us by learned counsel for the Revenue. As regards the remaining two grounds on which the claim of the assessed was rejected, the Tribunal held as follows :