JUDGMENT : P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. - Amalgamation took place between Kalinga Tubes Limited and Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, the petitioner herein. The said amalgamation was finally approved by the company court by order dated December 11, 1981. The amalgamation was to be effective from January 1, 1979. In the chapter dealing with aggregation of income and set-off or carry forward of loss in the Income Tax Act, Section 72A was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, with effect from April 1, 1978. That provided for carrying forward and setting off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in certain cases of amalgamation. As per that provision, if the amalgamating company, here Kalinga Tubes Limited, was not financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors immediately before such amalgamation, the amalgamation was in the public interest and other conditions specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette intending to ensure that the benefit under the section was to be restricted to amalgamations which will facilitate the rehabilitation or revival by the amalgamated company, the Central Government was to make a declaration to that effect on an application by the amalgamated company. The amalgamated company, namely, the petitioner company, moved an application u/s 72A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the "Act"), by submitting the proposed scheme of amalgamation to the specified authority praying that the scheme of amalgamation be recommended to the Central Government so that the grant of benefit u/s 72A(1) of the Act could be considered by the Central Government. The authority concerned rejected the application. The amalgamated company, the petitioner, had made a further submission and had requested the specified authority to reconsider its decision. The scheme of amalgamation along with the detailed revival and rehabilitation package which had been submitted by the petitioner and the subsequent information furnished by the petitioner, were considered by the concerned authority. By communication dated December 31, 1981, the petitioner was informed that the specified authority was satisfied that if the amalgamation was effected in accordance with law based on the scheme submitted by the petitioner, the specified authority would be in a position to recommend to the Central Government that the conditions referred to in Section 72A(1) of the Act are satisfied. It was further stated that the specified authority would not be in a position to make the recommendation as indicated, if there was any material change in relevant facts. It was also clarified that the issue of that letter was not to be taken as an approval of the share exchange ratio contained in the amalgamation scheme. The petitioner was advised to send an application for the purpose of recommendation u/s 72A(1) to the Central Government after the amalgamation was effected. 2. In view of the approval of amalgamation by the company court on December 11, 1981, the petitioner, the amalgamated company, on January 15, 1982, made a formal application u/s 72A(1) of the Act. That application was not recommended by the specified authority. By communication dated May 6, 1983, the concerned authority informed the petitioner that the amalgamation of Kalinga Tubes Limited with the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions enumerated in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 72A of the Act. The reasons for that conclusion were also indicated in the communication dated the May 6/7, 1983. The petitioner challenged that communication before this court in a writ petition. This court by judgment dated May 7, 1984 Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Specified Authority and Others, ), noted that the power to pass a final order u/s 72A(1) of the Act lay with the Central Government itself and that it was for the Central Government, on the recommendation of the specified authority, to be satisfied as to the existence or non-existence of the pre-conditions as provided in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 72A(1) of the Act. The Central Government had to apply its mind to the recommendation made by the specified authority and on a consideration of all the relevant factors, it had to reach its own satisfaction as to the fulfilment of the pre-conditions prescribed in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 72A(1) of the Act. It was, therefore, open to the Central Government to override the recommendations of the specified authority and to come to its own conclusion if it was satisfied that on the materials on record, the pre-conditions laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 72A(1) of the Act are satisfied in a given case. It was, therefore, open to the Central Government to override the recommendations of the specified authority and to come to its own conclusion if it was satisfied that on the materials on record, the pre-conditions laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 72A(1) of the Act are satisfied in a given case. Their Lordships, therefore, held that it was only necessary to direct the Central Government to pass final orders on the application made by the petitioner u/s 72A(1) of the Act by not only considering the recommendation made by the specified authority, but also all other relevant factors. 3. Pursuant to this direction, the Central Government considered the application made by the petitioner and by order dated July 4, 1984, declined to grant a declaration u/s 72A(1) of the Act as sought for by the petitioner. This order of the Central Government was challenged before this court. This court, by the judgment in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, quashed the order of the Central Government on the ground that the contentions and submissions of the petitioner had not been dealt with by the Central Government and, consequently, the refusal by the Central Government to make the declaration was not valid. The matter had to be re-examined by the Central Government keeping in view, the observations made by the court. Thus, the matter was remitted. The Central Government re-examined the question and by order dated August 2, 1991, again declined to grant the declaration sought for by the petitioner. Refusal to grant the declaration is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. Originally, by judgment dated March 18, 1998, reported as Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others this court dismissed the writ petition holding that the decision of the Central Government did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this court. The petitioner challenged the said decision of this court in Civil Appeal No. 5751 of 1998 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its judgment dated November 13, 1998, took the view that the judgment of this court was not a speaking one and a speaking order was needed for disposal of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before this court. The Supreme Court in its judgment dated November 13, 1998, took the view that the judgment of this court was not a speaking one and a speaking order was needed for disposal of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before this court. Hence, the decision of this court was set aside and the writ petition was remanded to this court to be heard afresh and to be disposed of on the merits. This court was directed to discuss the facts and the law and indicate the reasons for the conclusion which it comes to. It is pursuant to this order of remand that the matter has again come up for hearing before us. 5. In the present order dated August 2, 1991, challenged before us in this writ petition, the Central Government, after referring to the earlier proceedings and the observations by the High Court, held that the closure of the sick unit in the year 1982 within the revival period itself was a material change in the relevant facts. It held that it could not be found that the amalgamated company had adhered to the scheme of amalgamation for a fairly long time. It was further held that the purpose of revival of the sick unit was not achieved and since the sick company was closed during the revival period itself, it could not be said that the amalgamation of the company was in public interest. It was also held that the conditions laid down in paragraph 7 of the guidelines issued by the Central Government were in any event not fulfilled in the case on hand. It was noticed that a new business under a new licence was started by another company said to be a subsidiary of the amalgamated company and not by the amalgamated company itself. These reasons given by the Central Government are challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments. In addition, learned counsel also challenged the validity of condition No. 7 laid down by the guidelines as being arbitrary, as having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and hence as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. These arguments require to be dealt with in the light of the directions contained in the order of remand passed by the Supreme Court. 6. These arguments require to be dealt with in the light of the directions contained in the order of remand passed by the Supreme Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that for the purpose of Section 72A(1) of the Act, the relevant previous year was 1978-79 and the assessment year was 1979-80. The amalgamation had come into effect with effect from January 1, 1979. The amalgamating company was manufacturing steel tubes. The amalgamated company, after the amalgamation, had continued the manufacture of steel tubes, the business that was being carried on by the amalgamating company. That business was stopped or the steel tubes manufacturing unit was closed down, only on January 24, 1983. In other words, the business continued up to about nine months of the assessment year 1982-83. The proximate date or period for considering the claim of the petitioner for the declaration u/s 72A(1) of the Act, was the year, 1979, in this case. The closure took place only on January 24, 1983. That was not a proximate date. It could not be taken note of by the Central Government to decide whether the declaration sought for u/s 72A(1) of the Act should be granted or not. It was a fact which in any event, had occurred only about four years after the amalgamation. Therefore, one of the reasons relied on in the impugned order for non-grant of the declaration was illegal. According to learned counsel, it was settled by the earlier remand order reported in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that what was relevant was the state of affairs as on the date of amalgamation. Learned counsel laid emphasis on the following observations in the remand judgment reported in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, : "They have proceeded on the basis that departure, if any, from the scheme at a subsequent time could be the basis for refusal of the recommendation or declaration. We do not think that this approach is correct and tenable in law. It may be possible to take such a stand if the departure is at a point of time of immediate proximity. Where, however, there is continued observance of the scheme for a fairly long time, it should not be of any consequence while considering the recommendation and/or declaration. It may be possible to take such a stand if the departure is at a point of time of immediate proximity. Where, however, there is continued observance of the scheme for a fairly long time, it should not be of any consequence while considering the recommendation and/or declaration. There has to be evaluation of this aspect by the concerned authorities. . ." 7. The three conditions to be fulfilled by the amalgamating company seeking the benefit of Section 72A of the Act are that the amalgamating company was not viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors immediately before the amalgamation, that the amalgamation was in public interest and that the conditions as laid down by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette to ensure that the benefit under the section is restricted to amalgamations which would facilitate rehabilitation or revival of the business of the amalgamating company are fulfilled. We think that at this stage it would be proper to refer to the other guidelines or conditions specified by the Central Government in that behalf. 8. The guidelines are annexed to the writ petition as annexure 3. Since the question whether the amalgamating company was not viable or not is not in issue at this stage, we are not referring to the guidelines in that behalf. But, regarding public interest to be served by amalgamation, the specified authority was to consider the following : (i) Amalgamation in the context of industrial policy in general, and in particular, policy for the industry to which the sick unit belongs. (ii) Basic viability of the sick unit (iii) Need of tax benefit for revival of the sick unit. (iv) How effectively the resources generated through tax benefit u/s 72A, as supplemented by other resources that may be required, are made available by the amalgamated company for revival of the business of the amalgamating company's undertaking. (v) How quickly and effectively the undertaking of the amalgamating company is proposed to be revived. (vi) Nature of the product manufactured by the sick unit. (vii) Employment given by the sick unit. (viii) Location of the sick unit. (ix) Consequence of closure of the sick unit on the industry, ancillary linkages, if any employment in the region and creditors. 9. (vi) Nature of the product manufactured by the sick unit. (vii) Employment given by the sick unit. (viii) Location of the sick unit. (ix) Consequence of closure of the sick unit on the industry, ancillary linkages, if any employment in the region and creditors. 9. The further guidelines provided for the amalgamated company are that it should identify the real causes for the non-viability of the amalgamating company's undertaking and formulate a satisfactory programme for the rehabilitation and revival of the business of the undertaking, taking into account, inter alia, protection of the interests of the workers employed by the amalgamating company. The revival and rehabilitation scheme should effectively deal with each of the causes of sickness in the manner laid down by way of Clauses 1 to 6. Clause 7 of the guidelines which is relevant for our purpose is to the following effect : "7. Rehabilitations should normally be without any modification of business and as per the existing product line and industrial licence held by the amalgamating company or with such diversification, or backward or forward product integration, as will not require a new industrial licence. Diversification to unconnected fields can be considered only in special cases where the specified authority is satisfied that there is no reasonable scope for revival of the undertaking with its present product line and that such diversification will be necessary for restoration of financial viability of the undertaking, provided that amalgamating company has already obtained industrial licence for production of such new items, or where industrial licence is not required for manufacture of such items." 10. The other conditions stipulated are not immediately relevant. It can be seen that guideline No. 7 specified that there should be a rehabilitation of the business of the amalgamating company by the amalgamated company without any modification and as per the existing product line and industrial licence held by the amalgamating company. Diversification to unconnected fields can be considered only in special cases with the approval of the specified authority, provided that the amalgamating company already had obtained industrial licence for production of new items intended to be produced by the amalgamating company or where the industrial licence was not required for manufacture of such items. Diversification to unconnected fields can be considered only in special cases with the approval of the specified authority, provided that the amalgamating company already had obtained industrial licence for production of new items intended to be produced by the amalgamating company or where the industrial licence was not required for manufacture of such items. In other words, the continuance of the existing business of the amalgamating company was contemplated, or in proper cases, diversification into a business for which the amalgamating company itself held a licence. 11. Before proceeding to discuss the points argued one fact that has emerged and is found, requires to be noticed. It is the fact that the diversified industry is not started by the amalgamated company Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited but it is started by another new company, Indian Charge Chrome Limited. It is stated in the written note submitted on behalf of the petitioner. "The new business was started by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the amalgamated company, Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, the petitioner herein. Besides, the letter of intent for the new charge chrome project was issued in the name of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, the petitioner herein." The business of the amalgamating company has been closed down and though the letter of intent for the new industry was said to be issued in the name of the amalgamated company, the industry itself was started by a subsidiary of that amalgamated company and not by the amalgamated company. The subsidiary obviously would be an independent assessee under the Income Tax Act. Though a subsidiary, the said company would be an independent legal entity. In that situation, can it be said that it is the amalgamated company that has diversified or has started a new industry in the premises of the amalgamating company ? It therefore appears to us that the amalgamating company will not be in a position to claim the benefit of Section 72A of the Act since it has closed down the business during the revival period itself and has not started any new industry in its place. It therefore appears to us that the amalgamating company will not be in a position to claim the benefit of Section 72A of the Act since it has closed down the business during the revival period itself and has not started any new industry in its place. The claim of benefit made by Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, the amalgamated company u/s 72A(1) of the Act has therefore to be rejected on the sole ground that the amalgamated company has not only closed down the industry run by the amalgamating company but had also not started a new industry in the premises, the new industry having been started by Indian Charge Chrome Limited, another entity though said to be a subsidiary of the amalgamated company. In this context, one of the reasons given by the authority for its decision that the new industry is not started by the amalgamated company but by a new limited company cannot be said to be irrational, irrelevant or unsustainable. 12. Condition No. 7 as per the guidelines was challenged as being unreasonable and arbitrary, it having no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by Section 72A of the Act. This approach was made because it was practically conceded that condition No. 7 was not satisfied in the case on hand. The amalgamating company did not have an industrial licence for the charge chrome industry that was subsequently started. The amalgamating company had a licence for manufacture of steel tubes. That business was fully closed down by the amalgamating company and a subsidiary of the amalgamating company had started a new business on the basis of a fresh licence ; though it is said that at a subsequent point of time the need for a licence itself was done away with. It was in that context that counsel for the petitioner challenged condition No. 7 as arbitrary and unreasonable. 13. We are not in a position to accept the argument that imposition of condition No. 7 in the guidelines has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by Section 72A of the Act. Section 72A is a special provision enabling the carrying forward and setting off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the amalgamating company by the amalgamated company, on the conditions referred to in the section being fulfilled. Section 72A is a special provision enabling the carrying forward and setting off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the amalgamating company by the amalgamated company, on the conditions referred to in the section being fulfilled. The conditions to be fulfilled are that the amalgamating company, immediately before the amalgamation, was not financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors. This fact need not detain us in this case, since it is agreed on all hands that this condition is satisfied. The second condition is that the amalgamation must be in the public interest. The third is that the other conditions may be specified by the Central Government to ensure that the benefit under the section is restricted to amalgamations which would facilitate rehabilitation or revival of the business of the amalgamating company. The two elements, the element of public interest and the element of ensuring a rehabilitation of a sick business or industry of the amalgamating company are the important elements that would enable the amalgamated company to have the benefit of Section 72A of the Act. It is not as if in every case of amalgamation, the amalgamated company is entitled to the special benefit of carry forward conferred by Section 72A of the Act. That benefit is extended only in cases of such amalgamations where the amalgamation would facilitate the rehabilitation or revival of the business of the amalgamating company and the amalgamation is in public interest. That public interest element included the welfare of the employees of the amalgamating company and their continuance in employment and the continuance of the manufacturing of the products of the amalgamating company in view of their very nature and in the context of public interest. Therefore, the primary object of enacting Section 72A of the Act is to enable or aid the amalgamated company to revive the business of the amalgamating company which had gone into decline and to ensure the welfare of the workmen and the continuance of the production of the particular product in the interests of the country or in general interest. Therefore, the primary object of enacting Section 72A of the Act is to enable or aid the amalgamated company to revive the business of the amalgamating company which had gone into decline and to ensure the welfare of the workmen and the continuance of the production of the particular product in the interests of the country or in general interest. Therefore, the guidelines mainly aim to carry forward this object but at the same time giving a little relaxation in favour of the amalgamated company when a special case is made out and diversification to an unconnected field can be considered and permitted, provided the amalgamating company had already a licence for production of the new item or where an industrial licence is not required for the manufacture of such item. The object is clearly to ensure that the business carried on by the amalgamating company is revived and carried on by the amalgamated company with a little leeway for the amalgamated company to diversify to another line of business for which the amalgamating company itself had a licence. In our view, condition No. 7 cannot be successfully challenged as having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved u/s 72A of the Act. On the other hand, we find that it is really a condition in furtherance of the object sought to be achieved by Section 72A of the Act and the concession extended therein to the amalgamated company which had in fact not made the loss, to carry forward the loss of the amalgamating company and showing a further concession to the amalgamating company by extending the benefit even in case of diversification in special cases provided the diversification was to a business for which the amalgamating company had a licence, unless of course, no licence at all was needed for the diversified business. We cannot therefore accept the argument that guideline No. 7 was invalid being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We overrule that argument. 14. As we noticed, condition No. 7 has not been fulfilled in this case. The business of the amalgamating company had been stopped. The amalgamating company did not have a licence for the diversified industry. That licence was used by a company said to be a subsidiary of the amalgamated company though it is claimed that the licence was in the name of the amalgamated company. The business of the amalgamating company had been stopped. The amalgamating company did not have a licence for the diversified industry. That licence was used by a company said to be a subsidiary of the amalgamated company though it is claimed that the licence was in the name of the amalgamated company. In any case it was not an industry that the amalgamating company could have started since it held no licence for the same and at the relevant time, a licence was required for it. 15. One of the main contentions urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that it was not as if the industry run by the amalgamating company was closed down immediately. The amalgamation had taken effect from January 1, 1979, as ordered by the company court. The business of manufacturing steel tubes was continued in the calendar year 1980-81 and also in the calendar year 1982. In the year 1982, the industry of the amalgamating company was found to have made losses and hence with effect from 1983 the manufacture of steel tubes was closed down. Thereafter the employees of the amalgamating company were allowed to have the benefit of a voluntary retirement scheme. The fact that some of the employees were sent out either by way of voluntary retirement or otherwise and the line of business of the amalgamating company was closed down about four years after the amalgamation took place, was irrelevant for considering whether the amalgamated company was entitled to the benefit of Section 72A(1) of the Act. The matters that were relevant were matters in proximity to the date of amalgamation. This aspect was clear from the decision of this court reported in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others. When an order u/s 72A(3) of the Act was challenged before this court, this court had pointed out that the authority concerned had to proceeded on the basis that a departure if any from the scheme at a subsequent point of time could not be the basis for cancellation of the recommendation or denying of a declaration u/s 72A(3) of the Act. The approach made was not correct or tenable and it may be possible to take such a stand only if the departure was at a point of time of immediate proximity. The approach made was not correct or tenable and it may be possible to take such a stand only if the departure was at a point of time of immediate proximity. Where, however, there was continued observance of the scheme for a fairly long time it should not be of any consequence while considering the recommendation or declaration. There had to be an evaluation of that aspect by the concerned authorities. It is, therefore, contended that for a reasonable proximity of time, the amalgamated company had continued the business of the amalgamating company and that would be enough to entitle the amalgamating company to carry forward the loss as provided u/s 72A of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the business of the amalgamating company was completely closed down at a subsequent point of time, most of the workers of the amalgamating company were sent out one way or the other and there was no revival of the industry or business of the amalgamating company at all. 16. We find it difficult to accept this argument. As we have noticed, the main purpose of the concession contained in Section 72A of the Act is to ensure that the business of the amalgamating company is revived, the same line of business as far as possible is continued and in public interest including the interest of the workers employed by the amalgamating company and the requirements of the market or of the nation for the particular product is met by the continued carrying on of the business of the amalgamating company. Here, the Central Government has taken note of the fact that even within the revival period, there was closure of the business of the amalgamating company and this was a material change that had to be taken note of. Considering the object of Section 72A of the Act, the said approach cannot be considered to be incorrect, irrelevant or irrational. Even in the order passed u/s 72A(3) of the Act originally, it had been held out that a recommendation to the Central Government could be made, unless there was any material change in the relevant facts. The closure of the sick unit altogether within the revival period, in the circumstances and in the context of the object sought to be achieved by the enactment, cannot be said to be an irrelevant fact. The closure of the sick unit altogether within the revival period, in the circumstances and in the context of the object sought to be achieved by the enactment, cannot be said to be an irrelevant fact. We, therefore, find that the said reason given by the Government for rejecting the claim u/s 72A(1) of the Act is justified and in any event, cannot be said to be untenable. 17. One of the reasons for the sickness of the amalgamating company was that its plant and machinery had become absolete. The scheme of amalgamation which was approved, envisaged an expenditure of Rs. 2.47 crores on modernisation program during the years 1979-84. The amalgamated company, however, incurred during the years 1979-84 only an expenditure of Rs. 17,00,000 on that score, and the closing down of the industry was in the beginning of the year 1983. Therefore, according to the Government, the amalgamated company had not adhered to the scheme of amalgamation for a reasonably long time so as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 72A of the Act. This reason also cannot be said to be irrational or erroneous on facts. This coupled with the fact that the industry itself was closed down within the revival period justified the conclusion of the authority that the conditions for getting benefit u/s 72A(1) of the Act have not been fulfilled. 18. Similarly, when the authority concerned finds that in view of the limited number of workmen of the amalgamating company retained by the amalgamated company, public interest has not been subserved cannot also be faulted. The same is the position regarding the giving up of manufacture of steel tubes which was the business of the amalgamating company. Thus, there was no revival of the business of the amalgamating company and there was also no rehabilitation of the workmen employed by the amalgamating company. There was also no continuance of the production of the amalgamating company. In that situation, the finding that public interest had not been subserved cannot also be found to be erroneous. The reasons given in the order under challenge for finding that the basic purpose of revival of the industry has not been achieved, are also seen to be tenable. It has been found by the authority that the business of manufacturing of charge chrome was started by a new limited company and not by the amalgamated company. The reasons given in the order under challenge for finding that the basic purpose of revival of the industry has not been achieved, are also seen to be tenable. It has been found by the authority that the business of manufacturing of charge chrome was started by a new limited company and not by the amalgamated company. Since the majority of the workers of the sick unit were retrenched and their interests were not protected, the amalgamation cannot be said to be in public interest. The argument is that other persons had been employed and workers had been retrenched or allowed to retire on payment of due compensation and some of the workers had been retained. That may be true. But, the fact remains that most of the employees of the amalgamating company had not been retained and they had been retrenched either by adoption of a scheme of voluntary retirement or otherwise. That aspect cannot be said to be irrelevant. The finding that the machinery and equipment of the amalgamating company had not been utilised at all in the new project and it could not therefore be said that there was a revival or rehabilitation of a sick unit as a result of the new project, also seems to be correct on the facts admitted or otherwise established. None of the machinery of the amalgamating company was used. According to the amalgamated company, the machinery had become obsolete. We have already dealt with the challenge to condition No. 7 prescribed by the guidelines and the finding of the authority that condition No. 7 of the guidelines has not been fulfilled. We find that the finding in that behalf is justified. 19. We must remember in this context that we are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the concerned authority. We are only exercising a certiorari jurisdiction. The reasons given by the authority concerned are not seen to be irrelevant in considering the question whether the amalgamated company is entitled to claim benefit u/s 72A(1) of the Act. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons given by the authority may be relevant for considering the claim for the subsequent year u/s 72A(2) and are not relevant for considering the claim for benefit u/s 72A(1) of the Act cannot be accepted in the circumstances. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons given by the authority may be relevant for considering the claim for the subsequent year u/s 72A(2) and are not relevant for considering the claim for benefit u/s 72A(1) of the Act cannot be accepted in the circumstances. Since the reasons given are consistent with the object sought to be achieved by Section 72A of the Act, in the light of the conditions prescribed therein and the guidelines issued, it cannot also be said that the order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record justifying our interference. We cannot say that any relevant fact has been omitted to be considered by the authority concerned. We cannot also say that the authority has misunderstood the real effect of any of the facts established. In this situation, we are satisfied that no ground for the issue of a writ of certiorari has been made out by the petitioner. 20. Section 72A of the Act, it appears to us, seeks to achieve the main object of ensuring that an industry which has become unviable in the hands of the amalgamating company, is not allowed to be closed down and it is some how revived by framing a scheme of amalgamation with the amalgamated company, with a view to the continuance of the business or industry in public interest and in the interests of employment of the workers involved. It is in aid of or in furtherance of the achievement of that object that a fiction is created whereby the assessee, namely, the amalgamated company which in fact had not made the losses is allowed to carry forward the loss incurred by another assessee, the amalgamating company. This concession is given to ensure that the company is revived or rehabilitated. This concession is not available when the amalgamation is followed by a closing down of the business, sending out most of the workmen and the amalgamated company or as in this case, a subsidiary of the amalgamated company starts a new business or industry of its own altogether with practically a new work force. We think that the acceptance of the claim of the amalgamated company, the petitioner herein, would defeat the very object with which Section 72A of the Act had been enacted. 21. We think that the acceptance of the claim of the amalgamated company, the petitioner herein, would defeat the very object with which Section 72A of the Act had been enacted. 21. In view of our conclusions as above, we see no reason to interfere with the order annexure 1. We dismiss the writ petition. Final Result : Dismissed