9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2011 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2012 - SANJIV KHANNA, EASWAR R. V., JJ. JUDGMENT 1. The Revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short), impugns the order dated February 18, 2011, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal", for short) in I. T. A. No. 2148(Del.)/2010 in the case of M/s. Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The Assessing Officer had denied deduction under section 80-IB of the Act on the ground that the respondent-assessee had not employed ten or more workers. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held to the contrary. 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 February, 2006 8 March, 2006 8 3.7 The assessee by way of filing a chart, along with its reply dated November 23, 2008, therein including certain numbers of persons by stating that "At Jammu-regular" and even including the three directors by stating that they were also involved in the manufacturing process has tried to take the figures of workers beyond the prescribed number, i.e., more than 10. However, in the absence of any supporting evidences being filed during the course of assessment proceedings, it cannot be presumed that these persons were also involved in the manufacturing process. Though the word 'worker' has not been defined in the Income-tax Act, however, by taking the ordinary dictionar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Jammu unit. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the relevant portion of which has been quoted above, has not taken into consideration the casual or the contractual employees and has not treated them as workmen. We may reproduce below the observations of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 339 ITR 491 (Bom) in which the expression "worker" was interpreted and held (page 495) : "The expression 'worker' is neither defined under section 2 of the Act nor under section 80-IB(2)(iv) of the Act. As per Black's Law Dictionary, the expression 'worker' means a person employed to do work for another. Under section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948, the expression 'worker' means a person employed direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer has not examined and considered the nature of control and supervision exercised by the appellant. It is not the contention of the Revenue and it is not the finding of the Assessing Officer that the alleged workers were engaged on job work basis and the respondent employer did not exercise control and supervision over the workmen. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held that the workers including casual and contractual workers were working in the direct supervision and control of the respondent-assessee. It has been held that the casual/contract workers were paid salary by the respondent-assessee as shown by the salary register produced before the Assessing Officer. 7. In view of the findings record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
