COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. JAIDEEP INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two questions of law referred for the opinion of this court are in the following terms : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in allowing investment allowance under Section 32a on the total cost of machinery of Rs. 1,64,638 and dies and moulds of Rs. 17,616 ?

(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal was right in holding that filing of the audit report under Section 80j (6a) during the assessment proceedings and not along with the return of income would satisfy the requirements of the aforesaid section ?" 2. The matter regarding investment allowance under Section 32a of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is with regard to the assessee's claim for investment allowance in respect of the machinery purchased before and installed after March 31, 1976. During the period October 13, 1974, to January 12, 1977, the assessee purchased machinery of the value of Rs. 1,64,638 besides dies and moulds for Rs. 17,616. Investment allowance at the rate of 25 per cent. was consequently sought with regard to the total amount of machinery and dies and moulds of Rs. 1,82,254. The Income-tax Officer as also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed this investment allowance only for the machinery purchased during the assessment year in question which was to the tune of Rs. 27,076. The claim relating to the dies and moulds was disallowed holding that they were not machinery. The Tribunal, however, took the contrary view holding that dies and moulds were also part of machinery and what is more, as the machinery had been installed after April 1, 1976, the assessee was entitled to the investment allowance in respect of the entire amount, that is Rs. 1,82,254. No exception can, indeed, be taken to this view of the Tribunal as a plain reading of the provisions of Section 32a would show that the machinery or plant referred to in Sub-section (1) thereof, is machinery or plant installed after March 31, 1976. There is a clear finding to this effect recorded by the Tribunal, namely, that the machinery was installed after April 1, 1976. This being so, question No. (1) must be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

(3.) TURNING now to the other question posed, namely, with regard to the filing of the audit report, along with the return of income in terms of Section 80j (6a), there can, indeed, be no escape from the conclusion that the requirement of the audit report being filed along with the return of income is rendered mandatory by the provisions thereof. It is pertinent to note in this behalf that this provision clearly lays down that deduction claimed shall not be admissible unless the assessee also furnishes along with the return, the audit report in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by the accountant. This being so, the second question referred has to be answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee This reference is disposed of accordingly.