ASHOK BHUSHAN AND PRAKASH KRISHNA,JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct to allow the claim that the benefit of Sec. 80 -I was attached to the undertaking which was taken over by the assessee as a running concern even through by such take over the said undertaking got diluted its identity as a separate distinct business and the assessee company did not fulfill the conditions laid down in Sec. 80 -I (2)(ii) read with explanation 2 thereof. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct to allow the benefits of Sec. 80 -I even though the assessee did not fulfill the conditions laid down in Sec 80 -I (7) of the Act."
(2.) THE dispute relates to the assessment year 1993 -94. The assessee, a Company was incorporated on 10th June, 1991. It took over industrial undertaking known as M/s Goel Udyog as a going concern w.e.f. 18th September, 1991. Earlier M/s Goel Udyog was proprietorship concern. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee -Company claimed benefit of Section 80 -I of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said claim was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that machinery acquired by the assessee was previously used by M/s Goel Udyog.
(3.) THE assessment order was challenged in appeal before C.I.T.(A) who allowed the appeal on 4th April, 1995. The department carried the matter further in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Tribunal by the order under appeal has dismissed the appeal.;