Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rampur Industries Ltd.

Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee, are heard on the question of admission.

This is an application u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sri Bharatji Agarwal at the very outset relying upon Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, , submitted that the assessee is not entitled to claim investment allowance u/s 32A of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, this concession u/s 32A of the Income Tax Act has been wrongly granted in favour of the assessee. On the other hand, learned counsel, Sri Vikram Gulati, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the aforesaid decision has no application to the instant case. The only question involved in the aforementioned case was that whatever investment was incurred in the cold storage was the subject-matter of assessment but in the instant case, the petitioner has installed ice factory for which he is claiming investment allowance u/s 32A of the Act. The processing which has taken place in Delhi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, has no application in this case where ice factory is also installed along with cold storage. This being so, in our considered opinion, the assessee is entitled to get the benefit u/s 32A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has granted concession to the assessee in respect of the ice factory. No question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The application is dismissed.