2014 (3) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal could have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, rectified and recalled its earlier order in the appeal, confirming disallowance of investment allowance on the machine. The respondent assessee carries on business, inter alia, of leasing and hiring out plant, machinery, equipment, vehicles etc. The assessee filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1989-90 inter alia claiming investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act at the rate of 20 per cent of Rs.7,36,650/-, that is, the value of bottle washer machine. An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the claim of the respondent assessee to investment allowance on bottle washer machine. The appeal file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the machinery for the purpose of its business. Therefore, a leasing or finance company, which leased out machinery owned by it, to third parties, who used the machinery for manufacture of articles or things as specified in Section 32A(2)(b)(III) would be entitled to investment allowance in respect of such machinery under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. Having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (supra), the learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and recall its earlier order in part, in so far as the same confirmed the disallowance of investment allowance. The registry was directed to fix the appeal for hearing on the limited issue of admissibility of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Supreme Court in CED Vs. C.R. Ramachandra Gounder reported in (1973) 88 ITR 448 held that the learned Tribunal had power to rectify its own mistake. In Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. reported in (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) the Supreme Court affirmed that the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to rectify a mistake apparent on record. The issue of whether the learned Tribunal could have rectified its mistake, is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra). The Admissibility of the claim of the assessee to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, in a case like this, has been d....