9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of weighted deduction under section 35B disallowed by ITO, whether conditions fulfilled - Sub-section (1A) of section 35B in force during assessment year 1979-80 - Whether assessee qualifies as 'small-scale exporter' - Interpretation of term 'small-scale exporter' - Whether goods purchased from small-scale industrial undertakings qualify as manufactured or produced by assessee - Interpretation of Explanation in sub-section (1A) of section 35B - Whether conditions under section 35B(1A) satisfied. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT HYDERABAD-B involved an appeal by an assessee, a firm engaged in exports, regarding the disallowance of a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1979-80. The dispute centered around the fulfillment of conditions specified in sub-section (1A) of section 35B, which was in force during the relevant assessment year. The key issue was whether the assessee qualified as a 'small-scale exporter' as per the provisions of the said sub-section. The term 'small-scale exporter' was crucial in determining the eligibility for the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Explanation in sub-section (1A) defined 'small-scale exporter' as a person exporting goods manufactured or produced in small-scale industrial undertakings owned by him. The contention arose regarding whether goods purchased from small-scale industrial undertakings, as in the case of the assessee, could be considered as manufactured or produced by the assessee for the purpose of qualifying as a 'small-scale exporter.' The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the words 'owned by him' in the Explanation only qualified 'undertakings' and not 'any small-scale industrial undertaking.' The Tribunal emphasized that a plain reading of the clause indicated that the words 'owned by him' applied to both 'undertaking' and 'undertakings.' The Tribunal also dismissed the reliance on a circular by the Board, stating that it did not support the interpretation suggested by the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed a new claim raised by the assessee during the appeal regarding purchases made from small-scale industrial undertakings for embroidery work before exporting. The Tribunal held that this claim was not raised before the lower authorities and did not align with the requirements of section 35B(1A). Additionally, a comparison with a previous court decision highlighted the distinction between manufacturing activities and the purchase and embroidery of goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities were justified in holding that the essential conditions under section 35B(1A) were not satisfied by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and relief under section 35B(1A) was deemed not allowable based on the grounds presented in the judgment.
|
