9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deletion of addition made on account of processing expenses. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80-I: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under section 80-I by relying on the decision in the case of ITO v. Navbharat Seeds (P.) Ltd. without appreciating the material differences in facts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in processing and distribution of agricultural seeds, and the seeds were treated with chemicals, making them unfit for human consumption. This treatment was argued to constitute a manufacturing process. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2000-01, where it was held that the assessee's activities did not amount to manufacturing or production. However, the Tribunal reconsidered this stance in light of subsequent decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Navbharat Seeds (P.) Ltd., which confirmed that treating seeds with chemicals rendered them a different commodity, thus qualifying for deductions under section 80-I. The Tribunal further supported its decision by citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd., which held that seeds treated with chemicals became distinct from food grains and were not subject to market fees. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities met the requirements of section 80-I, as the final product was a different article from the raw material, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Processing Expenses: The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 13,14,957 out of the total processing charges of Rs. 50,80,976, attributing this proportionate expenditure to the sale of certified seeds, which was only 25.88% of the total sales. The CIT(A) deleted this addition by following its order in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1997-98, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure without pointing out whether the assessee had claimed any specific expenditure related to certified seeds. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the matter should be reconsidered in light of the final outcome of the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1997-98. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing a speaking order after considering the final outcome of the earlier appeal and providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the deduction under section 80-I, confirming that the assessee's activities constituted manufacturing or production of a new article. However, it remanded the issue of processing expenses back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, ensuring a thorough review based on the final outcome of the related appeal for the assessment year 1997-98.
|
