COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. AGRO INSECTICIDES AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion :

(2.) THE relevant facts may be briefly stated :

(3.) ANOTHER contention raised before the AAC was that the ITO erred in not allowing the exemption under Section 80J of the I.T. Act to which the assessee was rightly entitled. The AAC directed the ITO to work out the relief allowable under Section 80J as no reasons were given by the ITO for rejecting the claim of the assessee. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the revenue has contended that since no claim for exemption under Section 80J was made by the assessee before the ITO, the AAC was not justified in giving a direction for allowing appropriate exemption under Section 80J of the Act. As against this, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that such a claim was in fact made before the ITO and that even if such a claim was not preferred, the assessee would be entitled to raise this claim for the first time before the AAC. The Tribunal has rejected the contention of the revenue holding that the observations in the order of the AAC would clearly show that the assessee has in fact preferred a claim for exemption under Section 80J before the ITO. The Tribunal further held that even if such a claim was not made by the assessee before the ITO it is entitled to claim exemption before the AAC which has the same powers as the original authority. The revenue has, therefore, made an application for reference of the two questions extracted above for our opinion.