2003 (2) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llows: The assessment for the assessment year in question was completed on April 6, 1976. While completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer had allowed a deduction of Rs. 45,43,630 under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. However, subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax felt that deduction, amounting to Rs. 45,00,000 in respect of the contribution made by the petitioner to Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, had been wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer and hence his assessment order was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Invoking his powers under section 263 of the Act, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, the Commissioner directed withdrawal of the said de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tivity constitutes or constituted scientific research, or whether any asset is or was being used for scientific research, on a reference being made by the Board to the prescribed authority and the decision of the prescribed authority shall be final. In other words neither the Income-tax Officer nor the Commissioner (or even the officers of the Board of Direct Taxes) have been given power to decide such questions. We must, therefore, agree with the submission for the assessee that the Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction was not in accordance with law." Admittedly, the said order has been accepted by the Revenue inasmuch as no reference application against the said order was filed. In view of the order of the Tribunal, C.W.P. No. 230....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntific research, the Assessing Officer is competent to make a reference to the Board in terms of section 35(3) of the Act and; therefore, the issue should be left to the discretion of the Assessing Officer. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that although the writ petition was admitted to hearing in the year 1979, the events taking place during the pendency of the writ petition, in particular the aforenoted order of the Tribunal, have material bearing on the reopening of the assessment for the relevant year. As a matter of fact, in our view, the said order should have been brought on record in the year 1980 when it was passed. Under the circumstances, we feel that it would be appropriate and expedient if all....