1986 (5) TMI 51 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be allowed to a cold storage.
2. Whether the activity of cold storage constitutes manufacturing or production of an article or thing.
3. Whether the cold storage is engaged in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Investment Allowance under Section 32A:

The primary issue was whether the investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be allowed to a cold storage. The assessee, a partnership firm running a cold storage, claimed an investment allowance on the cost of plant and machinery installed. Initially, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) allowed the investment allowance, but the Commissioner later scrutinized the records and initiated proceedings under section 263, arguing that the investment allowance was wrongly allowed as the cold storage did not qualify for relief under section 32A.

2. Cold Storage Activity as Manufacturing or Production:

The assessee argued that the activity of cold storage involved manufacturing, relying on the decision in CIT v. Yamuna Cold Storage. The Commissioner, however, did not agree, stating that the case of Yamuna Cold Storage was not an authority for granting investment allowance under section 32A. The Commissioner referred to decisions in CIT v. Radha Nagar Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. and Addl. CIT v. Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P.) Ltd., which held that processing in a cold storage plant did not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner emphasized that for section 32A, the assessee must be engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing, which was not the case with cold storage.

3. Generation or Distribution of Electricity or Power:

The argument was made that the cold storage was engaged in the generation of a form of power, specifically cool air, which was used to preserve potatoes. The learned representatives for the assessee argued that refrigeration involved a complicated scientific process and that the cold storage generated cool air, which constituted a form of power. They contended that this should qualify the cold storage for investment allowance under section 32A (2) (b) (i).

Judgment:

The Tribunal considered the contentions and facts on record. It was noted that the function of cold storage is primarily to store food products and prevent them from natural decay. The Tribunal held that the cold storage uses electricity for a specific purpose but does not generate electricity or any other form of power. The Tribunal emphasized that the sub-clause requires the plant and machinery to be installed for the purpose of the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power, which was not the case here. The business of the assessee was the preservation of potatoes and other perishable commodities, not the generation of power.

Regarding the argument that cold storage constitutes manufacturing or production, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., which distinguished processing from manufacturing. The Tribunal concluded that the cold storage activity did not amount to the manufacture or production of an article or thing. The Tribunal also noted that the mere qualitative difference in potatoes after storage did not make them a different article or thing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the cold storage did not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 32A (2) (b) and, therefore, its plant and machinery did not qualify for investment allowance.

← Previous Next →