9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apart from this activity the assessee purchased huge quantity of grey cloth which it got dyed, bleached and then sold them in the market. The view taken by the ITO was that to the extent of the activity which related to the purchase of cloth followed by its dyeing etc. cannot be termed as a manufacturing activity. He placed reliance on CIT vs. S.S.M. Finishing Centre (1984) 40 CTR (Mad) 200 : (1985) 155 ITR 791 (Mad) for this proposition and placed that the order of the ITO should be restored. On that the other hand, the plea of the assessee's counsel was that the assessee had 200 handlooms which were use by it for conversion of yarns into cloth after which they were bleached, dyed and printed. Similarly the clothes which were purchased we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asic components by physical labour or mechanical process. And a manufacturer is a person by whom or under whose direction and control the articles or materials are made." The Board's Circular No. 347 dt. 7th July 1982 has accepted the fact that it is not necessary that the entire manufacturing operations should be carried out by an assessee himself and that he could carry out such operations by getting them done through outside agencies. The case law relied on by the ld. Departmental Representative is on the issue of allowing of development rebate under s. 33 of the IT Act where the rebate is allowed if the plant is installed for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any one of more articles or things specified in the 5t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the appeal effect it turns out to be refund. The assessee relied on the Special Bench order of the Tribunal, in ITO, vs. Lachmandass Raghunath Dass Parihar (1984) 20 TTJ (JP) 52 (SB): (1983) 6 ITD 474 (JP) (SB). On this issue it is not disputed by the Department that but for the restriction of the deduction under ss. 80HH and 80J by the ITO the assessee was due a refund and therefore, it is a case where the refund was only deleted. The case is squarely covered by the Special Bench decision in the case of Lacman Dass Raghunath Dass Parihar (1984) 20 TTJ (JP) 52 (SB) : (1983) 6 ITD 474 (JP) (SB) and respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) even on this issue. 3. In the result, the departmental appeals are di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
