V.K. Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge of this court passed on July 16, 1990, has been filed by Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., an existing public company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at Brooke House, Calcutta.
(2.) Tea Estates India Limited was a company in existence prior to the year 1993, and was engaged in the business of growing green tea leaves in its tea gardens and manufacturing black tea and selling the same in the market. The method of accounting of the said company was mercantile and the accounting period of this was the financial year. This company was a regular income-tax assesses under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was being assessed by the Income-tax Department, Sector-10, Calcutta, for all the relevant assessment years including the assessment year 1993-94. It is claimed that in computing the taxable income, Tea Estates India Limited was entitled to benefits under the provisions of Section 32AB and Section 33AB of the Income-tax Act, apart from other benefits and reliefs allowable thereunder. It is further claimed that in the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91, Tea Estates India Limited made deposits in the accounts opened under the Investment Deposit Accounts Scheme (Tea), 1986, under Section 32AB(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. In the previous years relevant to the assessment years, the said assessee-company had also purchased assets in terms of Sections 32AB and 33AB of the Act. In the said four assessment years, the company claimed deductions under Section 32AB(1) of the Act, which were allowed by the Assessing Officer while making assessments for the relevant assessment years.
(3.) Certain other assessments for other accounting periods relevant for other assessment years were also made by the Assessing Officers. For instance, in the accounting period relevant for the assessment year 1993-94, the company made deposits under Section 33AB(1) of the Income-tax Act and as such claimed deductions under the relevant section. This claim was, however, disallowed by the Assessing Officer.;