9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of extra shift allowance for freezing plant as part of refrigeration plant. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of the assessee to claim extra shift allowance for a freezing plant owned by a registered firm engaged in the seafood business. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, citing that the freezing plant was considered a part of the refrigeration plant, which had a specific provision for depreciation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity for the plant to operate continuously due to the perishable nature of fish and the high temperatures in Kerala. The Appellate Tribunal disagreed with this view, asserting that the freezing plant was indeed part of the refrigeration plant, thus denying the extra shift allowance claim. The court referred to the relevant rule in the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which outlined the conditions for granting extra shift allowance. The rule specified that the assessee must establish working multiple shifts to be eligible for the allowance. The Income-tax Officer highlighted the lack of evidence proving the operation of the entire concern for double or triple shifts, leading to the initial refusal of the claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, reasoned that the plant needed to be ready for continuous operation due to the nature of the business, supporting the allowance claim. The Tribunal, aligning with its previous stance, deemed the freezing plant as part of the refrigeration plant, thus rejecting the claim for extra shift allowance. The court acknowledged that the freezing plant was indeed a component of the refrigeration plant, emphasizing the need to interpret the term "plant" broadly. However, it reiterated that statutory requirements for claiming extra shift allowance must be met, necessitating the establishment of working double or triple shifts. As the assessee failed to provide evidence meeting these requirements, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. In conclusion, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, supporting the Revenue's position and denying the assessee's claim for extra shift allowance. The judgment was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as per legal requirements.
|
