The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Motilal Kapurchand Kotecha Bhusaval

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICGTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 169 of 1993 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Applicant. vs. Shri Motilal Kapurchand Kotecha Bhusaval ..... Respondent Mr. Ashok Kotangale, Sr. Counsel with D.A. Dubey i/b. S. Bhattacharya for Applicant. CORAM: V.C. DAGA AND A.S. AGUIAR JJ. Date:19[th] July, 2005. P. C.: 1. By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act , 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the followingquestions of law for the opinion of this court: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Tribunal is right in allowing the investmentallowance even though the conditions laid down insection 32-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have not beenfulfilled ?” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the revenue it is not in disputethat the Respondent – assessee, is a contractor firm and alsothat the Respondent – assessee, is a contractor firm and also engaged in the business of manufacture of spun pipes. Theassessee is also registered as a Small Scale Industry under the Small Scale Industries Act. The assessee has thus claimedinvestment allowance under section 32 -Aof the Income Tax Act . Thesame was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as wellas Tribunal. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that theassessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing spun pipes and thesame were used for executing water supply scheme. 3. We are satisfied that this is a case wherein the Respondent – assesseecomplies with the conditions laid down under section 32-A of theIncome Tax Act . The Tribunal was not justified in permitting thequestion pregnant with the meaning that the assessee does not complywith the provisions of section 32A of the Act. As a matter of fact theassessee complies with the provisions of section 32-A. complies with the conditions laid down under section 32-A of theIncome Tax Act . The Tribunal was not justified in permitting thequestion pregnant with the meaning that the assessee does not complywith the provisions of section 32A of the Act. As a matter of fact theassessee complies with the provisions of section 32-A. 4. In this view of the matter the Tribunal had rightly allowed theinvestment allowance. Accordingly the aforesaid question isanswered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee. investment allowance. Accordingly the aforesaid question isanswered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee. Reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (V. C. DAGA J. ) 3 (A. S. AGUIAR J.)