1986 (6) TMI 73 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity of being heard to the Income Tax Officer (ITO).
2. Blending of tea as manufacturing or processing for allowances under sections 32A and 80J.
3. Entitlement to deduction under section 80J when machines were not in existence on the first day of the relevant previous year.
4. Exclusion of cash subsidy received from the Government from the total income.
5. Deduction of a sum as bad debts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Opportunity of being heard to the Income Tax Officer (ITO):
The department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not give an opportunity of being heard to the ITO, rendering the order void. However, it was not substantiated that the ITO was uninformed about the hearing. The tribunal found no merit in this technical ground and rejected it.

2. Blending of tea as manufacturing or processing for allowances under sections 32A and 80J:
The department contended that blending tea does not amount to manufacturing or producing an article or thing as required by sections 32A and 80J. The assessee argued that blending tea should be considered as producing a new product. The tribunal referred to various case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in Chowgule & Co., which held that blending amounts to processing, not manufacturing. The tribunal concluded that blending tea is processing, not manufacturing or production, and thus the assessee is not entitled to relief under sections 32A and 80J.

3. Entitlement to deduction under section 80J when machines were not in existence on the first day of the relevant previous year:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that it was not necessary for machines to be in existence on the first day of the previous year for section 80J relief. The tribunal agreed, stating that the computation period is relevant, not the first day of the previous year. However, since the assessee did not meet the manufacturing or production condition, no direction was given in favor of the assessee.

4. Exclusion of cash subsidy received from the Government from the total income:
The assessee claimed that the cash subsidy should be excluded from total income. The tribunal noted that this issue was previously set aside for fresh consideration by the ITO. Consistent with the earlier decision, the tribunal vacated the Commissioner (Appeals) and ITO's decisions and directed the ITO to reconsider the matter after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

5. Deduction of a sum as bad debts:
The assessee claimed a deduction for a sum written off as bad debts. The ITO rejected the claim due to no recovery steps taken. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance, noting no evidence of the assessee engaging in buying and selling flats or taking legal steps for recovery. The tribunal found no evidence of the assessee's engagement in real estate business, and the amount was considered a capital account investment. The tribunal upheld the revenue authorities' decision, denying the bad debt deduction.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partially allowed the departmental appeal and treated the assessee's appeal as partly allowed for statistical purposes.