K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE assessee-petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the income-tax assessment year 1975-76 as is evident from annexure III attached with the writ petition.
(2.) ONE of the grounds taken in the revision petition was as below : " Because the petitioner had not made the claim under Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the cinema carbon and process carbon manufacturing plant installed in his small-scale unit which came into operation after May 31, 1974, the learned Income-tax Officer as well as the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner both have erred and acted illegally in not allowing the deduction prescribed in Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." The revisional court, through its order dated January 22, 1982, repelled the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-petitioner in the following words : " It is contended by the assessee that the Income-tax Officer has not allowed deduction under Section 32(1)(vi) as well as extra shift allowance. On a query made by me, it was admitted on behalf of the assessee that this claim was not made before the Income-tax Officer nor any such ground was taken before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the assessee is not entitled to raise these grounds for the first time in these proceedings. I am supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1. I, therefore, decline to interfere." Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, the assessee-petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the revisional court has misappreciated the import of the ruling relied upon and reported in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) ; it has also been stressed before us that the aforesaid ruling has been explained and distinguished later on and that the revisional court has patently erred in not examining the claim of the assessee-petitioner on merits. Learned counsel for the Department has tried to justify the impugned judgment of the revisional court. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is proper to mention here the relevant portion of the finding recorded in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) as below (headnote) : " Reversing the decision of the High Court, that, as neither was any claim made before the Income-tax Officer regarding the relief under Section 84 nor was there any material on record in support thereof, and from the mere fact that such a claim had been allowed in subsequent years, it could not be assumed that the prescribed conditions justifying a claim for exemption under Section 84 were also fulfilled, the Tribunal was not competent to hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have entertained the question of relief under Section 84 or to direct the Income-tax Officer to allow the relief." ;