1984 (4) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 62,82,634. On this a relief of Rs. 3,76,958 was claimed under s. 80J of the Act. This was duly allowed by the ITO. Subsequently by a letter dt. 12th March, 1977 the assessee claimed a further relief of Rs. 6,97,463. It was pointed out to the ITO that the capital employed in the industrial undertaking should have been taken as on the 1st day of year and not as on 31st March, 1973, which was the last date of the accounting year. The ITO accepted this request and by order dt. 31st March, 1978 allowed a further relief of Rs. 6,97,463. 2. The records of the Department were subsequently checked by the internal audit party. The audit party pointed out to the ITO that in the year under appeal, there was no import of tractors in semi-knocked co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ess of reasoning, which was beyond the scope of rectification falling under s. 154 of the Act. It was next contented that even on factual basis, the assessee was entitled to the relief for the entire year and could not be restricted to a period of the year. Both these contention were accepted by the CIT(A). He finally cancelled the order of the ITO passed under s. 154 of the Act. 4. Against the above order of the CIT(A), the Department has filed present appeal. The ld. Departmental Representative referring to s. 80J(1) of the Act, submitted before us that the required relief could not be allowed only as a deduction from the profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking. He submitted that the industrial undertaking in the year ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ITO was not in favour of allowing the relief for a part of the year as there was no such case before him. 5. On behalf of the assessee, the ld. counsel Shri H.G. Agrawal strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). He did not dispute the principle as contained in Ashok Motors Ltd. vs. CIT. His submission on the other hand, was different. He contended that the ITO has presumed that only Rs. 4,79,155 could be held to be the profit derived from the industrial undertaking, which presumption, according to him, was incorrect. He contended that there was nothing to show that a higher profit or the entire profit was not attributable to the industrial undertaking. He objected to the ITO's estimate of the profit attributable to the industrial u....