COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GANGA ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : THE assessee is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture of spare parts of machinery. THE assessment year in question is 1975-76. While framing the assessment for the assessment year in question, the Income-tax Officer did not allow any deduction under Section 80J of the Act, as the assessee had not, in the return, made any claim for deduction under Section 80J of the Act. When the matter came up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that though no formal claim under Section 80J of the Act was made by the assessee at the assessment stage, necessary data was available with the Income-tax Officer and he could have allowed deduction under Section 80J of the Act. This contention was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Aggrieved by that decision, the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 778, held that in a case where there was material on record on the basis of which deduction under Section 80J could be allowed, necessary relief under that provision could be given. THE Tribunal did not accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Department that there was no material on record for allowing deduction under Section 80J of the Act. THE Tribunal held that there was material on record to justify allowance of the claim under Section 80J the Act. THE Tribunal, therefore, upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, at the instance of the Department, the

(3.) OUR answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Revenue. As none appeared on behalf of the assessee, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.