2012 (10) TMI 806 - AT - Income Tax

Exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 by CIT(A) - re assessee assessee s claim under section 10B - live plants produced by the assessee through tissue culture the same was concerned with live article or things - AO allowed the claim - Held that - The assessee s business activity of tissue culture is manufacture or produces within the meaning of section 10B(2)(i) and CIT had wrongly held that since assessee s produce is plant , which is a lively object, therefore, it is covered by section 2(29)(BA), as CIT (A)has not proceeded on the correct factual and legal interpretation of section 2(29BA) qua facts and circumstances of the instant case as where the assessee is involved in tissue culture, which can in no way be called any activity other than manufacture or produce because one mother plant is tissue cultured, which gives rise to production of voluminous number of plants by artificial processes and stages AO in finalizing the assessment had rightly granted the assessee deduction under section 10B. It was one of the possible view as per law, which could not be revised by CIT under section 263. Consequently, once the assessee s unit is entitled to be treated to be a qualifying unit under the provision of section 10B(2)(1) the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax revising the assessment does not withstand the test of the law - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Commissioner of Income Tax's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Eligibility of the assessee's unit for exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Definition and scope of "manufacture" under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Commissioner of Income Tax's order under section 263:
The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2007-08, which was finalized by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO allowed the exemption under section 10B for the assessee's unit engaged in producing and exporting tissue culture plants. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) issued a notice under section 263, proposing a revision of the assessment on the grounds that the AO had erroneously allowed the exemption without proper examination. The CIT held that the production of live plants did not qualify as "manufacture" or "production" under section 10B, referencing the definition in section 2(29BA) and relevant case law. The assessee contested this, arguing that the CIT's revision was not justified as the AO's decision was a possible view based on the facts and law at the time.

2. Eligibility for exemption under section 10B:
The CIT's primary contention was that the assessee's activity of producing tissue culture plants did not amount to "manufacture" or "production" since the end product was a live plant. The CIT relied on Supreme Court judgments in CIT v. Relish Foods and CIT v. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., which held that culturing living things did not constitute manufacturing. The assessee countered by detailing the sophisticated tissue culture process, which involves multiple stages of scientific intervention and significant transformation of the plant material, thus qualifying as "manufacture" or "production."

3. Definition and scope of "manufacture" under section 10B:
The Tribunal examined the legislative history and the definitions provided in sections 10A, 10AA, and 10B. It noted that the term "manufacture" was not explicitly defined in section 10B for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal referred to the broader definition of "manufacture" in section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, which includes processes like tissue culture. The Tribunal also considered the Finance Act, 2009, which introduced a definition of "manufacture" in section 2(29BA) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009, but clarified that this definition did not apply to the assessment year 2007-08.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's tissue culture activity constituted "manufacture" or "production" under section 10B(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the broader interpretation of the term and the legislative intent to promote export-oriented units. It held that the AO's original assessment allowing the exemption was a valid and possible view, and the CIT's revision under section 263 was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal nullified the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal.