2000 (7) TMI 211 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 1988-89 under section 251/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Whether tea blending activity qualifies as manufacturing or processing for deduction under section 80-I(2).

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the Department challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to the Assessing Officer regarding the tea blending operation's eligibility for section 80-I benefits. The Department contended that tea blending did not constitute manufacturing under section 80-I(2)(iv) as it did not involve an industrial process. The Department relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in J.B. Advani & Co. case to support its argument.

2. The Ld. A.R., on the other hand, referenced previous Tribunal decisions and the G.A. Renderian Ltd. case to argue that tea blending qualified as an industrial activity. The Ld. A.R. requested the dismissal of the appeal based on these precedents.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of tea blending activities and the definition of "process" in various contexts. Referring to the G.A. Renderian Ltd. case, the Tribunal highlighted that any operation resulting in a change in the commodity constitutes processing. However, the Tribunal noted that the G.A. Renderian Ltd. case did not discuss section 80-I specifically. The Tribunal also cited the Bombay High Court's ruling in J.B. Advani & Co., emphasizing that mere blending of tea did not amount to manufacturing.

4. The Tribunal further examined the Calcutta High Court's decision in the Appeejay (P.) Ltd case regarding the manufacturing and production of blended tea. The High Court concluded that tea blending did not involve manufacturing of a new product, as the input and output remained tea. This ruling indicated that tea blending did not qualify for relief under section 80-J(4)(iii).

5. Considering Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the creation of a new product for manufacturing, the Tribunal concluded that tea blending did not meet the criteria for section 80-I benefits. The Joint Director of Industries confirmed that tea blending did not constitute manufacturing as per government circulars. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the Assessing Officer's addition.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Department's appeal, ruling that tea blending did not qualify as manufacturing or processing under section 80-I(2).