High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Dalmia Bharat Cement Ltd.
Sections 80J
Asst. Year 1973-74
Arijit Pasayat., C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.
IT Ref. No. 542 of 1983
4th September, 2001
Counsel Appeared
Harihar Lal, for the Assessee : R.C. Pandey with Ms. Premlata Bansal, for the Revenue
JUDGMENT
D.K. JAIN, J. :
Following question has been referred for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘C’, Delhi (in short ‘Tribunal’) : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing that in asst. yr. 1973-74, relief is allowable under s. 80J for the full year and not on pro rata basis for the period during which kiln No. 2 in Dead Burnt Magnesite Plant at Salem was working ?” The dispute relates to the asst. yr. 1973-74.
2. Though it is fairly accepted by learned counsel for the Revenue that, in view of the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. (1999) 155 CTR (Del) 608, the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J of the Act for the whole year even though the industrial undertaking worked for part of it, according to him there was no profit available, so far as the unit is concerned, and, therefore, in the absence of profit under s. 80J relief cannot be worked out. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that even it is so, there has to be carry forward for adjustment in the future years. As the question, which has been referred, indicates the controversy related to the issue “whether the relief was available for the whole year or for the part period during which the industrial undertaking worked”, the obvious answer to the question is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. But it shall be subject to the working out of the actual figure, that is, whether there was any profit attributable to the unit in question and the question of carry forward, if any.
Reference is accordingly disposed of.
[Citation : 254 ITR 669]
