2005 (5) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Benefit of sections 80HH and 80-I Industrial Undertaking - the sole proprietary business - The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the transferred assets did not exceed 20 per cent, of the total whether it be of the plant and machinery or the whole of the assets of the new unit - Tribunal further held that the number of workers remained ten or more during a substantial part of the year and if the office workers are to be included the total number of workers were more than ten throughout the year - Tribunal further found that the establishment of a new unit was at a place different from the old unit and manufacturing an item was also different to that manufactured earlier - Tribunal further found that apart from the items other than those which had been transferred from the old to the new unit no other machinery was used or utilised by the new unit in its manufacturing process Thus, Tribunal rightly held that the assessee was entitled for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I

Issues:
1. Interpretation of sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowance of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I for a new industrial unit.
3. Compliance with conditions for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I.
4. Assessment of transferred assets and utilization of machinery in a new unit.
5. Consideration of worker count and establishment of a new unit in a different location.

Interpretation of sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The High Court considered the questions of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the applicability of sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the sole proprietary business of the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that both sections provide for deductions based on specific conditions related to industrial undertakings, and emphasized the importance of not forming a new business by splitting up an existing one or transferring machinery from a previous business. The Tribunal also noted the requirement of employing a certain number of workers in the manufacturing process.

Allowance of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I for a new industrial unit:
The Tribunal analyzed the facts of the case, where the assessee had started a new concern named "M/s. Khandelwal Wires" after closing a previous business. The Assessing Officer disallowed deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I, citing the transfer of machinery from the old concern to the new one. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the transferred assets did not exceed the permissible limit of 20 percent and that the new unit fulfilled the conditions for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I.

Compliance with conditions for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I:
The Tribunal further examined the compliance of the new unit with the conditions specified in sections 80HH and 80-I. It found that the establishment of the new unit was at a different location from the old one and involved manufacturing a different product, meeting the requirements for claiming deductions. The Tribunal also considered the number of workers employed, concluding that the new unit had sufficient workers for most of the year, which was deemed compliant with the statutory conditions.

Assessment of transferred assets and utilization of machinery in a new unit:
Regarding the allegation of utilizing machinery from the old unit in the new one, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting this claim. It emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue, and since no conclusive evidence was presented, it accepted that the new unit did not extensively use machinery transferred from the old unit in its manufacturing process.

Consideration of worker count and establishment of a new unit in a different location:
The Tribunal also addressed the argument related to the number of workers initially employed in the new unit, stating that compliance with the worker count condition was met for a substantial part of the year. It emphasized that the establishment of a new unit in a different location and the manufacturing of a distinct product justified the assessee's claim for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, as it found no errors in the Tribunal's order. The detailed analysis of the facts and legal provisions led to the affirmation of the deductions claimed under sections 80HH and 80-I for the assessment years in question.

← Previous Next →