TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (12) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid that the action of the ITO who originally framed the assessment was bad as it contained mistake apparent from record ?" 2. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The original assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act was made on 30th Nov., 1973. Thereafter, the ITO sent a letter dt. 6th Aug., 1976 to the assessee, stating that during the calender year 1970, the assessee was granted depreciation on additions instead of restricting it to the proportionate amount based on the number of days the additions to the machineries were used in that year. According to the ITO, on several machineries installed in the later half of the year, excess extra shift allowance was allowed as against the correct extra shift allowance admissible in proportio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be carried forward rather than the loss set off against the profit from the NI old unit for the purpose. On the question whether NI expansion plant was just an expansion of the old plant or it constituted a different undertaking, it was held that this was a debatable issue and, therefore, the benefit could not have been withdrawn under the provisions of s. 154 of the Act. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee approached the Tribunal challenging the order to the extent that the appellate authority held that the ITO was justified in applying s. 154 of the Act for the purpose of revising extra shift depreciation allowance. The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) in not allowing withdrawal of deduction under s. 80J of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closed that the NI expansion plant of the assessee was started under a fresh licence for manufacturing a distinct marketable product 'procion' which was not earlier manufactured and that a separate building and machinery were set up for the same for which an investment of Rs. 1.13 crores was made. If, on the basis of such facts, the original assessing authority took the view that a new industrial undertaking was set up within the meaning of s. 80J, it cannot be said that any error apparent on the face of the record was committed by the AO so as to invoke the rectification power under s. 154. 7. The question as to whether the concern worked as a whole, was argued at a great length. The Revenue side contended that all the independent units....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factory or concern' in this provision of Appendix I would indicate that the working of each factory or concern of the assessee is to be separately considered. There is no room for construing this provision so as to mean that, if the assessee has several factories which are separate and independent units, only the working days when all the separate units have worked should alone be computed as the actual working days, as sought to be suggested by the Revenue. The question whether a factory or concern works as a whole or not cannot be linked with the working of another independent factory. Where the assessee has more than one factory, each factory 's such working days are to be separately computed to work out extra shift depreciation allowanc....