Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to get depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the sums of Rs. 3,43,387 and Rs. 5,51,377 ?

High Court Of Calcutta

CIT vs. Ashoka Cement Ltd.

Sections 32, 33

Asst. Year 1957-58

Suhas Chandra Sen & Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, JJ.

IT Ref. No. 102 of 1978

22nd February, 1989

Counsel Appeared

B.K. Naha, for the Revenue

SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J.:

The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (“the Act”) :”Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to get depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the sums of Rs. 3,43,387 and Rs. 5,51,377 ?”

The year of assessment involved in this case is the asst. yr. 1957-58 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1957.

The dispute is basically in respect of capitalisation of pre- production expenditure. The question of law, referred to this Court, has already been concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. CIT 1974 CTR (SC) 309 : (1975) 98 ITR 167. Following that decision, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

4. The Tribunal, in its statement of case, has pointed out that since the High Court had directed the Tribunal to refer the question, the question has been referred as framed by the CIT. In the rejection order of the application under s. 256(1), the Tribunal had pointed out the error in the figures mentioned in the question. The correct computation of the figures has been given by the Tribunal in its statement of case in paragraph 6 which is as under :”That the figures mentioned in the question sought to be referred are not correct figures as would be clear from the order of the Tribunal itself dated April 16, 1970. The correct figures which are under dispute are as under : Expenditure incurred during Rs. 2,48,516 (as would be clear from the period of erection up to August para 3 of the order of the Tribunal).” 15, 1956.

5. In that view of the matter, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee with this clarification that the figures mentioned in the question are not to be treated as correct and binding on any of the parties, but the figures given by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the statement of the case must be treated as correct.

6. There will be no order as to costs.

BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.

I agree.

[Citation : 186 ITR 443]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security