9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question in the negative. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held otherwise and by his order (annexure "B") directed the Income-tax Officer to grant investment allowance and apply the rate applicable to manufacturing companies. Against this decision, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Initially, by an order dated February 3, 1993, for "statistical purposes" the said appeal was decided and it was taken up for reposting, on the application of the assessee when the Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons preventing the assessee to appear before the Tribunal. Even though the appeal was disposed of "for statistical purposes", with regard to the question as to whether the business of centrif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of manufacturing. However, question No. 4 raises a contention that the assessee is an industrial company. Factually it must be carefully seen that before all the three authorities---assessing authority, first appellate authority, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the question that was raised and that came up for consideration got concentrated to the position whether the activity of the assessee-company is one of manufacturing or not and its consequences. Another thing that floats on the surface of the record is that the statement of facts (annexure "D-3") also speaks about the solitary question urged therein that the assessee is not engaged in any manufacturing or processing goods. Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is required to be taxed at the rate prescribed for industrial company. Learned senior counsel for the Department firstly, with regard to the main question as to whether the activity of the assessee-company is one of manufacturing was characteristically fair because the very question came up before us in Original Petitions Nos. 5471 of 1995 and others dated February 12, 1996---CIT v. Kanam Latex Industries P. Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 1 (Ker) to lead us to the conclusion, after taking into consideration the process known as centrifuging latex and the relevant decisions in regard thereto including the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989] 179 ITR 317 emphasising commerciality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then decided by the Cochin Bench in the matter of the said assessee, Kanam Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd. The real question is whether there is an error of a jurisdictional character attributable to the Tribunal in the impugned order in placing reliance on its earlier order which was recalled under the above circumstances. Taking into consideration the factual matrix referred to above we do not find any error when the Tribunal has observed that there was no reason to interfere with the view taken earlier, in view of the position that the earlier order was recalled to enable the assessee to put forth contentions on his behalf. Learned senior counsel then urged that although the first three questions are virtually and neatly covered by the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
