Investment allowance claim cannot be rejected merely for late filing of prescribed particulars; it must be decided on merits.

Investment allowance under section 32A could not be denied solely because the prescribed particulars were not furnished with the return at the first instance, as the statutory requirement under section 32A(4)(i) and rule 5AA is mandatory but not confined to the return stage; the assessing authority could call for the particulars later, and the claim had to be examined on merits. Invoices produced before the appellate authority were not a basis for outright rejection where they had not been called for earlier; they were to be considered on remand with an opportunity of hearing. The assessment was set aside and the matter restored for fresh consideration on the basis of the particulars, invoices, and other evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether investment allowance under section 32A could be denied merely because the prescribed particulars were not furnished in the first instance with the return, and (ii) whether the invoices produced before the appellate authority were inadmissible as additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether investment allowance under section 32A could be denied merely because the prescribed particulars were not furnished in the first instance with the return.

Analysis: Section 32A(4)(i) requires the prescribed particulars to be furnished in respect of the machinery or plant, and rule 5AA prescribes that such particulars shall be furnished in columnar form. The requirement is mandatory, but the provision does not compel the assessee to furnish them only at the time of filing the return. The assessing authority may call for the particulars if they are not initially available, and the claim cannot be rejected solely on the footing that the assessee did not volunteer them at the first instance.

Conclusion: The denial of investment allowance on the sole ground that the particulars were not furnished initially was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the invoices produced before the appellate authority were inadmissible as additional evidence.

Analysis: The invoices could amount to additional evidence, but they had not been called for by the assessing authority. The dispute over the stage at which the evidence was produced could not defeat the statutory claim where the necessary particulars were capable of being considered on merits. The matter required reconsideration on the basis of all relevant particulars and evidence, with an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Conclusion: The invoices were directed to be considered on remand and did not justify rejection of the claim.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh consideration by the assessing authority after examining the particulars, invoices, and other evidence in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory claim for investment allowance cannot be refused merely because the prescribed particulars were not furnished at the first instance; the requirement is satisfied if the particulars are later called for and furnished, and the claim must then be decided on merits.

---