1978 (3) TMI 120 - AT - Income Tax

High Court affirms manufacturer status for petrochemical company, orders development rebate

POLYOLEFINS INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The High Court upheld the assessee company's qualification as a manufacturer of petrochemicals, directing the Income Tax Officer to allow the development ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessee company qualifies as a manufacturer of petrochemicals.2. The entitlement and calculation of development rebate for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73.3. The jurisdiction and correctness of the AAC's order setting aside the whole assessments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Manufacturer of Petrochemicals:The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially determined that the assessee company was a manufacturer of petrochemicals, entitling it to a development rebate. However, during the assessment proceedings for the year 1973-74, the ITO reversed this decision and issued a notice under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to withdraw the previously allowed development rebate. The High Court quashed this rectification order, and the ITO was directed to allow the development rebate as per the High Court's judgment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) later set aside the whole assessments for the years 1969-70 to 1972-73, directing the ITO to re-examine whether the assessee was a manufacturer of petrochemicals. The Tribunal held that the AAC acted without jurisdiction in reopening this question for the assessment year 1969-70, as it had been conclusively decided by the High Court. For the years 1970-71 to 1972-73, the Tribunal directed the ITO to disregard the AAC's guidelines and decide the matter afresh.2. Entitlement and Calculation of Development Rebate:The ITO initially allowed a development rebate of Rs. 3,16,40,713 for the assessment year 1969-70, calculated at 35% on the total value of plant and machinery. This rebate was to be carried forward and deducted in subsequent years. However, for the year 1970-71, the ITO rejected the rebate claim due to the absence of a development rebate reserve as required by Section 34(3A). The AAC's order setting aside the assessments for 1969-70 to 1972-73 included directions to carry forward and set off the development rebate in accordance with the law and relevant circulars. The Tribunal quashed the AAC's order for the year 1969-70, directing the AAC to decide all other grounds raised by the assessee. For the years 1970-71 to 1972-73, the Tribunal confirmed the AAC's order to reconsider the development rebate but instructed the ITO to ignore the AAC's guidelines.3. Jurisdiction and Correctness of AAC's Order:The AAC set aside the entire assessments for the years 1969-70 to 1972-73, which the Tribunal found to be an overreach. The Tribunal criticized the AAC for not addressing other grounds of appeal and using a 'short cut method' that increased the workload for lower authorities and burdened the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the AAC should have limited the scope of reassessment to specific issues rather than setting aside the whole assessments. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the AAC's order for the year 1969-70 and directed the AAC to address all grounds raised by the assessee. For the years 1970-71 to 1972-73, the Tribunal allowed the reassessment on the specific issue of whether the assessee was a manufacturer of petrochemicals, but without the AAC's restrictive guidelines.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AAC to decide all grounds raised by the assessee for the year 1969-70 and to reassess the years 1970-71 to 1972-73 without the AAC's restrictive guidelines.