9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A for mining operations. - Validity of invoking provisions of section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. I, Hyderabad, under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, involving the entitlement to investment allowance for mining operations. The assessee, engaged in mining manganese ore, claimed investment allowance for new machinery used in the mining process. The Commissioner held that the mining activities did not constitute manufacturing or production of an article, thereby enhancing the assessment by disallowing the investment allowance. The appeal contended that mining manganese ore constituted production or manufacture of an article, thus entitling the assessee to the investment allowance under section 32A. The departmental representative supported the Commissioner's decision, arguing that mining did not amount to production. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the mining process detailed by the Geologist of the Company, which involved drilling, blasting, crushing, screening, and washing to extract manganese ore from rocks. The Tribunal observed that the end product, manganese ore, was distinct from the rock initially extracted, indicating a transformation through mining operations. Citing relevant case law, including Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke, the Tribunal emphasized that the process of production must involve labor or machinery, resulting in a product with a different name and use. The Tribunal noted precedents where activities akin to the mining operations in question were considered manufacturing processes, entitling the assessee to investment allowance. In contrast to the Commissioner's reliance on a case involving blending of ore post-mining, the Tribunal distinguished the facts and held that the assessee qualified for investment allowance under section 32A. The Tribunal referenced the decision in CIT v. M. R. Gopal and Harihar Quarry v. ITO to support its conclusion. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner's order and ruling in favor of the assessee's entitlement to the investment allowance for mining operations under section 32A of the Act.
|
