PURI BROS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company and is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Its case is being pleaded through petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a small-scale industrial unit. It is engaged in the manufacture of wheat products. It is further submitted that the Government of Jammu & Kashmir had issued an incentive scheme, whereby certain subsidies were allowed to this assessee. For the asst. yr. 1991-92, the subsidy which was allowed was to the extent of Rs. 21,55,800 and for the asst. yr. 1992-93, the amount of subsidy was Rs. 32,69,797. The subsidy which was received by the assessee was claimed as not liable to taxation under the Act. Such was the plea taken before the respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that under Chapter VI-A of the Act, special deductions are allowed from the gross total income. These deductions are permissible to new industrial units under ss. 80HH and 80-I of the Act. According to the petitioner, these deductions are allowed from the gross income as per the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that S. 80A of the Act provides that in computing the total income of an assessee, these shall be deductions as specified in ss. 80C to 80U. It is further submitted that deductions are permissible under ss. 80HH to 80-I to every new industrial unit when conditions laid down in these sections are fulfilled.

(2.) WITH regard to this assessment year, the deductions which were available to the petitioner as per the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, were under S. 80HH and not under S. 80-I. The allowable deduction was to the extent of 30 per cent only on the gross income. Copy of the grounds of appeal vis-a-vis asst. yr. 1992-93 is Annexure 'Q'. The further fact which is being pleaded is that on account of provisions contained in the Finance Act of 1998, a scheme was introduced. This scheme has been termed as Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (scheme). It is with regard to the liability which is supposed to be determined under this scheme, which is required to be gone into in the present petition. The further facts on the basis of this Scheme are being noticed below :

(3.) THE petitioner submits that the figure arrived at by the respondent is not correct and the demand could be raised to the extent of Rs. 4,14,991 and Rs. 9,78,744. The petitioner submits that a reply was sent to the communication dt. 1st March, 1999. It is submitted that benefit of tax permissible under ss. 80HH and 80-I, should be allowed. The communication sent in this regard is