emphasis supplied The Appellate Tribunal rejected the said application by order dated 20.10.1976.
The respondent assessee is a registered firm.
Thereafter the Revenue required the Appellate Tribunal in RA No.
The Revenue required the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to refer the following question of law under Section 256 1 of the Act for the decision of the High Court Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the amendment order made by the I.T.O. was number sustainable to the extent to which it purported to withdraw development rebate admissible to the assessee in respect of that part of the machinery plant which was the subject matter of the hiring agreement dated 27.8.1969.
A part of the machinery was subsequently sold.
194 of 1977 rejecting the application filed by the Revenue under Section 256 2 of the Income Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal declined the request of the Revenue and the application filed by the Revenue before the High Court also met with the same fate.
The facts of this case are in a narrow companypass.
We heard companynsel.
For the said year, the Income Tax Officer, by order dated 29.6.1968, allowed development rebate for the entire machinery and plant owned by the assessee and used for the said business in the sum of Rs.
This machinery was let out by the assessee on 27.8.1969 to M s. Hindustan Lever Limited for a period of three years with a provision for further renewal of the agreement or for outright purchase.
3204 of 1977 by order dated 21.2.1978, has filed the Civil Appeal against the order of Allahabad High Court dated 1.8.1977, rendered in ITA No.
It is, thereafter the Revenue filed the application under Section 256 2 of the Act before the High Courts which was rejected by order dated 1.8.1977.
1,00,093/ .
3204/77, the above appeal has been filed.
The original assessment order for the year 1965 66 was rendered on 29.6.1968.
It necessitated the Revenue to approach this Court by special leave.
1,00,093/ , granted earlier and in this view the amendment order passed by the Income Tax Officer was improper and unjustified.
85,222/ .
Paripoornan.
We are companycerned herein with the assessment year 1965 66.
It carried on the business of manufacture of milk powder.
The amendment order withdrawing the development rebate was passed by the Income Tax Officer on 30.3.1970.
The machinery that was left entitling the assessee to the development rebate for the said year was determined at of Rs.
In the circumstances, the Income Tax Officer, by an amendment order dated 30.3.1970, withdrew the development rebate of Rs.
1,00,093/ The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, In further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was companytended that there was numbersale or transfer within the meaning of Section 34 3 b of the Act, permitting withdrawal of the development rebate of Rs.
J. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow the Revenue having obtained special leave of this Court in Special Leave Petition Civil No.
