9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of investment allowance for the assessee. 2. Determination of whether the assessee's activities constitute "manufacture" or "production" of an article or thing. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowability of Investment Allowance for the Assessee: The core issue revolves around the assessee's entitlement to an investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's business involves dyeing, bleaching, and printing of unbleached grey cloth. During the assessment year, the assessee added new plant and machinery worth Rs. 18,14,877, which included capitalized interest of Rs. 4,36,250. The assessee claimed an investment allowance of Rs. 4,53,718 on this addition. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim, stating that the capitalized interest should not be considered for allowing the investment allowance, reducing the net cost of machinery to Rs. 13,78,621. Furthermore, the AO contended that the assessee, being a processing unit and not engaged in manufacturing, was not eligible for the investment allowance. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the activities of the assessee did not amount to manufacture as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) referenced the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. S.S.M. Finishing Centre, which held that processing activities like bleaching and dyeing do not change the basic quality of the cloth, and thus, do not constitute manufacturing. 2. Determination of Whether the Assessee's Activities Constitute "Manufacture" or "Production" of an Article or Thing: The assessee argued that the processes of dyeing, bleaching, printing, and sentering on grey cloth result in a new product, thus constituting "production" of an article or thing. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and other Tribunal decisions, asserting that the final product is a different article in terms of look, quality, and commercial value. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of section 32A, which allow investment allowance for machinery or plant used in the manufacture or production of an article or thing. The Tribunal noted that the terms "manufacture" and "production" have distinct meanings, with "production" having a broader scope. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation of these terms in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co., which clarified that production includes bringing into existence new goods, even if it does not amount to manufacturing. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities, although not manufacturing textiles, constituted the production of a new article or thing. The final product, being different in quality and commercial value from the raw grey cloth, met the criteria for investment allowance under section 32A. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the processes carried out by the assessee amounted to the production of an article or thing. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the investment allowance. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the investment allowance after verifying the admissible quantum. Result: The appeal was allowed, and the assessee was granted the investment allowance.
|
