Ajit K.Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court at the instance of the Commissioner : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to full relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without restricting the period during which the industrial unit had worked ?"
(2.) The facts leading to the said reference are as stated hereinafter.
(3.) The assessee is a company. The claim of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 for relief under Section 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, was rejected by the ITO on the ground that the benefit could not be allowed as the capital computed came to nil for the relevant period. On appeal, the AAC directed the ITO to allow the relief under Section 80J. While giving effect to the order of the AAC, the ITO restricted the relief under Section 80J to the extent of l/l2th only on the ground that the new industrial unit worked only for one month during the relevant accounting year, which is the calendar year in this case. According to the ITO, the new industrial unit started production only on December 1, 1977, and was operated only for a period of one month. The AAC held that the relief contemplated under Section 80J of the Act extended over a period of five years and it would not be proper or correct to reduce capital so arrived at by a further reduction with reference to the period for which the industrial undertaking had worked. He, therefore, held that the ITO was not correct in restricting the rule of Section 80J of the Act proportionately to 1/12th of the total relief for the period during which the new industrial unit had worked. He, therefore, directed to allow full relief under Section 80J without restricting the same to the period during which the industrial unit had worked.;