- (1.) ON an application under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that S. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, could not have been invoked in this case ?"
(2.) THE assessee was engaged in the activities of oil production work though oil expellers and was allowed development rebate @ 25 per cent. Learned ITO being of the view that in terms of item No. 31 of the 5th Schedule to IT Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled for development rebate @ 15 per cent. ITO therefore, issued notice under S. 154 of the IT Act and the order was passed under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, allowing the development rebate @ 15 per cent instead of 25 per cent. None appeared for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of this very assessee-CIT vs. Bagpatia Food Industries (1995) 127 CTR (Raj) 437 : (1995) 216 ITR 543 (Raj) : TC S28.2917-wherein this Court has taken the view that assessee is entitled for the rebate only @ 15 per cent and Tribunal was not justified in holding that the AO could not invoke the provisions of S. 154 of the IT Act, 1961. He further submits that the question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Following the decision of this Court in the case of this very assessee, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.;